Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: nirvana on May 14, 2006, 09:16:21 PM
-
I'm taing a trip to Orange Beach, Alabama this week, driving from Houston to there, is there any place I could find a confederate flag? My friends are all about southern pride. Anyway, a squaddie said they sell them at mom n pop establishments and novelty shoppes. Do supermarkets sell them? Does anyone know somewhere close to there that has them? Thanks.
-
Anywhere from VA down, you can find a rebel flag in just about any convienience (sp?) store to smaller gas stations. National chains won't have them, but smaller, more localized stores will be filled to the brim.
Never been to Alabama myself, but I don't think you'll have any trouble at all finding a rebel flag. Besides, you'll be in the South.
-
Piggly Wiggly?
-
Never seen one there. Try a little smaller outfit. Your best bet is probably a little novelty shop on the side of the road.
-
Nirvana you won't have any trouble finding a flag.
Have fun in Orange Beach. It is a great place. Outstanding fishing if you take a notion to go. Have fun.
-
Nirvana, I live about 4 hours away and may be able to sneak out and get one to you if you are not having any luck. There is a guy who sells all sorts of flags, caps and other assorted crap near my office 1-2 times a week. If you end up with a dry run then I can get you one. Don't go to Piggly Wiggly looking for a "confederate flag" though. Try little convenience stores and don't bother looking in and around the Orange Beach/Gulf Shores area. If you don't find one between Houston and the Alabama state line make sure you look for one before Mobile or once you hit the parkway coming down through Daphne, Foley and Loxley. I am pretty sure you can locate one through there.
-
nirvana..you like the coloreds eatn outside too?
South is a diff world...We spent aweek in Pelehachie Mississippi....WOW
My friends granparents were funny as hell..even tho they said.."oh that s where the colords would eat..
Then one Sunday before bass fishn..we got shut down trying to buy beer on sunday..BOOO!!!
Is there more to a Confederate flag then keeping your slaves?
-
I wouldn't want you driving 4 hours just for 2 flags Reschke, thanks though. It's not like they are a necesity, my friends just want them. I imagine we'll make a few stops at convenience stores for gas/driver changes. We stayed at Gulf Shores Plantation 3 years ago, wasn't a huge tourist place, but we went around Easter time. Never been to Orange Beach though so it should be interesting, I guess we are a ways from the beach.
Anyway, my family aren't quite seadogs so if we go fishing it will be my aunt, my dad, my sister, and myself. I have a week to find them so I imagine I can find them at some point. In addition to being alcoholic racists, my family also loves to souvenir shop.
-
Your best bet is probably a little novelty shop on the side of the road.
That's the sort of place you'll find one. Just curious, what version of the Confederate flag are you looking for?
The typical battle flag that everyone usually refers to as "the rebel flag"?
Or one of the Confederate national flags?
The reason I ask is, the one you probably want is the stereo-typical "rebel flag" those are very easy to find, but if you are looking for one of the national flags, they are much more difficult to find.
This is the first official Confederate States of America national flag:
(http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif)
this is the second:
(http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed2.gif)
and this is the third:
(http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed3.gif)
This one is probably the one you want, it's the naval jack which is a larger version of the "battle flag":
(http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/scross.gif)
There is also the "Bonnie Blue Flag", but I doubt you are interested in that one.
-
Yeah just the standard rebel flag.
-
When you buy one make sure it is made by a quality flag maker. There are some real doozies out there. :)
For starters, make sure the points of the stars are pointing upwards. :)
Also, you should be able to find the flag in Houston without much of a prob.
-
the flag you seek sir is the "battle flag of the army of northern Virgina"
all them yanks call it the confederate/rebel flag.
history: back in the day battle field communications were difficult, fog of battle( black powder smoke, similar uniforms, no radios) units were identified by flags, the confederate national flag could be mistaken for the federal flag so to ID rebel units in battle they come up with that red flag with the blue x. The rebel battle flag of the west was a blue flag with a white disc in the center.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
nirvana..you like the coloreds eatn outside too?
South is a diff world...We spent aweek in Pelehachie Mississippi....WOW
My friends granparents were funny as hell..even tho they said.."oh that s where the colords would eat..
Then one Sunday before bass fishn..we got shut down trying to buy beer on sunday..BOOO!!!
Is there more to a Confederate flag then keeping your slaves?
Your generalzation would be like a guy in the South assuming everyone in Northern California is gay because his friends grandfather was.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
South is a diff world...We spent aweek in Pelehachie Mississippi....WOW
Yep but having lived in several different areas of the United States I would not trade my life here in Alabama for anything else.
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Is there more to a Confederate flag then keeping your slaves?
Boy that's just closed minded in every sense of the word. Don't you realize that the vast majority of people who fought for the south in the civil war never owned a slave. In fact many of the soldiers who fought in the civil war were share croppers and before the war they worked in the fields beside other men and women who just happened to have a different skin color but for all intensive purposes those people (slaves) were in a better situation than the share croppers. At least those slaves were not threatened daily with having their homes taken from them because they could not keep up with the farming.
-
I've been to the south before, not bad, some cultural differences but for the most part we were 1) On a fishing boat or 2) In our motel/on the beach. I didn't really mind, ice houses in Texas were cool:aok
Would they sell them at that port in Galveston or where ever it is?
The battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia it is!
-
If you go by oxford you can get one at rebel rags.Man that place rock's!
-
Amount of churches is impressive.Seems like they dont have anything better to do but built another church.Plus for only $99 you can have bible tatooed in your brain.
-
The "war of northern aggression" wasn't really about slavery; it was about states rights. Slavery was turned into a central issue by Lincoln to encourage enlistment into the Union Army (the federals were getting their tulips kicked early on). General Lee was quoted as saying when asked about the slavery issue that he wished the south had freed the slaves & then fired on fort sumter.
Lets not forget boys & girls; the north had slaves too. It's funny how no one ever brings up how terrible the Dutch or the Portugese or the Spaniards or the English Etc. Etc. Etc. are, they held slaves too. But only the United States (the south inparticular) gets the black eye. And no country on earth has done so much to make up for, apologize for, & basically bend over backwards & jump through hoops for the wrongs of slavery.
Too many people think the movie "roots" was an accurate portrayal of slavery in America, it wasn't. No one is going to pay $1500 for a slave (when a good horse went for $50) & then proceed to maim & cripple them. They would just sell them off & get their money back if they were a problem.
It was decided, by the federal govt., that the union was more important than states rights & would be enforced by the military. When in actuality the states voluntarily joined the union & had every right to succeed whenever they chose too. The federal govt. caused the war by threatening to occupy Virginia with 50,000 federal troops to preempt the state legislature from voting for succesion. Virginia was the lynch-pin of the whole controversy, when they threatened to occupy them ( Virginia was still an obedient memberof the union at that time remember) they pushed people over the edge & one of those people was General Robert E. Lee.
The secretary of war tried to tap Gen. Lee as commander of the occupation force that was going to be sent into Virginia (Lee was a General in the federal army at that time) & Lee refused saying "My loyalties lie with my heart; & that's in Virginia" He resigned his commission & was placed in charge of the Army of the Confederacy shortly thereafter.
We shouldn't trivialize any aspect of that war, those were all American soldiers who were killed & remain so today. Slavery was wrong & slavery was abolished, the Confederate States of America lost the war, the reconstructed South was & still is a shadow of it's former self & we feel the economic effects of that war here today. There will never be another war between the states, even though the states still have a right to succeed from the union if they so choose, and if they do, I will be on the side of states rights & against central federal control over individual states internal affairs.
-
Did Lincoln free slaves so they could fight for him?
-
lol..got ya on the "northern Cali Ghey thing"..
when my mom moved to Florida the Hicks down there said..."werent you scared raising your children around San Fransico..they would turn ghey?!!..this lady said this with a straight face..
I think anytime you get into a "country " setting..racism is abundant..its about education...even though most stereotypes are based on some truth
-
Originally posted by KgB
Did Lincoln free slaves so they could fight for him?
During the Civil War, Lincoln decided, to declare that slaves in the seceding states were free. The emancipation proclamation didn’t apply to slaves in the states that remained within the Union. So it didn’t really “free the slaves.” It had little effect on slaves in the Confederacy, since they were beyond Lincoln’s authority. Politicians of the day remarked that Lincoln had freed the slaves he couldn’t help, & did nothing for the slaves he could help.
Lincoln admitted that Congress had no constitutional power to touch slavery by legislation; but he argued that he, as commander in chief of the armed forces putting down what he defined as an insurrection, could punish the rebellious states populations by stripping them of their property, even if that property happened to be slaves. In the case of insurrection, he contended, this could be done without the peacetime niceties of “due process of law.”
Legally, slaves were the property of other men; that is what slavery means, wrong as it is; and under the Constitution, nobody could be deprived of his property without “due process of law” — that is, a court proceeding had to prove to a jury that a slaveowner had somehow forfeited his property.
“Due process of law” didn’t mean a legislative act. Congress had no power to pass a law making slavery illegal in "obedient union states". Lincoln acknowledged this in his first inaugural address and even said he would support an amendment to the Constitution protecting slavery where it already existed.
So did he free the slaves to fight for the north? It isn't that simple really. The question is, did he free them at all, or did the south free them by the consequences of their actions. It's too complex an issue to rehash nearly 150 years after the fact in the AH forums. I just get aggravated by people who look down their nose at the South & Southerners. Southern soldiers fought & often won when they were outnumbered, didn't have food, ammuniton, or even shoes on their feet. They were the epitome of American bravery & fidelity to duty.
-
State's Rights or Protection of the right to hold slaves. Kinda disingenuous to call it just "State's Rights" when the root cause was the "peculiar institution" of slavery and its impact on the economy of the deep South.
-
Thats the point. The slavery issue was not the "root cause". It was a by product of a bigger issue & became a "hot button" topic that was pounced on after the first shots were fired to tug at peoples hearts & make them "feel" for the cause.
Remember, there were union states that held slaves, not just the Confederate States. The only place Lincolns proclamation was intended to affect was the successionist states.
From where I'm looking at it THAt is disingenuous.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
State's Rights or Protection of the right to hold slaves. Kinda disingenuous to call it just "State's Rights" when the root cause was the "peculiar institution" of slavery and its impact on the economy of the deep South.
Disingenuous to call it just about "States Rights" today I'll agree. Back then however the right of the state to maintain it's sovereignty was a very real and defining issue even if the motivation centered on slavery.
-
It was the root cause of the war. Lincoln's proclamation had nothing to do with the root cause of the war.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It was the root cause of the war.
No it wasn't.
-
Actually, I could be wrong, but I think it was...as a result of the Dred Scott case. Course, I'm a dumb southerner, so what do I know. :rolleyes:
-
Well, we've never had THIS discussion before....
-
as long as we all agree that I'm right I'm willing to drop it .... again. :cool:
-
It's about time we did then. Remarks like these get under my skin.
"you like the coloreds eatn outside too"
"Is there more to a Confederate flag then keeping your slaves"
"In addition to being alcoholic racists" (which may be true I don't know his family but it is a Southern stereotype)
"Seems like they dont have anything better to do but built another church.Plus for only $99 you can have bible tatooed in your brain. "
(too bad they didn't "built" some schools where you live)
"the Hicks down there said"
"anytime you get into a "country " setting..racism is abundant..its about education"
Racism is far more rampant in the urban industrial north & far worse among the black population than the suburban (or urban for that matter)white population in the south. And do forgive us as a people for having a large majority of folks who want to exercise their freedom to assemble & worship in the manner of their choosing, I personally would use the money they spent on those fancy buildings to buy food & clothes & educations for the poor, but that's just me.
We have weapon factories now, nuclear weapons & one of the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world
:O
All that in the hands of racist, alcoholic, uneducated, redneck hicks! Whatever will the rest of the country do!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
as long as we all agree that I'm right I'm willing to drop it .... again. :cool:
You're wrong as a fat ugly woman in spandex bicycle pants.;)
-
yes freedom to assemble...But no beer on Sundays...
freedom to lover your sister ..i know i know
Why in Lousana bayou's..are there only 2 last names for whole towns?
-
Not knowing my family you would think that is a stereotype I use. However, my family hails from the great state of Missouri, and they ARE alcoholic racists, it's not just a stereotype. Didn't know asking about a flag wuld spark this much controversy.
-
i dotn really giev a crap..
Kind of funy tho..we were drivn back from Lake Orovilel Sunday..Girl asks. about confederate flag..there was a 10x 10ft one hanging at a rug s for sale stand....she asked if it means the like to have slaves..I said..I dotn think so...but thats what a "common" folk beleive....but I told her I think there is more to the Confederates..then ..GIMME BACK OUR SLAVES...
If it doesnt mean that..its too bad you see so many redneck kooks flying it.....Kind of the saem with the Raiders flag...makes me laff everytime i see the driver of that car..Or how about this..." Bad Boys Club"
LMFAO...ahhhhhh Just Driving around is like the comedy channel
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
You're wrong as a fat ugly woman in spandex bicycle pants.;)
I'm right as rain and finer than frog hair.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
I think anytime you get into a "country " setting..racism is abundant..its about education...even though most stereotypes are based on some truth
Your writing is a fine testament to your superior urban education. Try not to think so much. You may hurt yourself.
:rofl
-
"yes freedom to assemble...But no beer on Sundays..."
- No beer at all anytime in my town, it's in a dry county.
"freedom to lover your sister ..i know i know"
- Only one time have I run into anyone that was into blood relation lovin'...& he was from Valejo Califorinia....& it was his niece he was bangin' it's funny because he even used that very arguement to try & justify it, "this is the south man, everybody does it" I was like...:huh
"I'm right as rain and finer than frog hair"
:rofl ignorance is bliss I suppose
-
so does that mean there is not more Inbredding Per capita in the Southern states then in the northern?
Im trying to remember the town in LA that has just 2 Family names..French sounding
I never once said it doesnt happen in the rest of the world..Just Teh South personifies it; )
dont take it personal
for some one preaching ...And do forgive us as a people for having a large majority of folks who want to exercise their freedom to assemble & worship in the manner of their choosing,
no booze doesnt sound free to me
and yes frog hair and ignorance..blah blah blah
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Your generalzation would be like a guy in the South assuming everyone in Northern California is gay because his friends grandfather was.
Not everyone is gay in Northern california...everyone is gay in Southern California.
-
so does that mean there is not more Inbredding Per capita in the Southern states then in the northern?
Yes.. :rofl that is what it means. I have lived in the South 90% of my life & inbreeding isn't any more prevelant here than anywhere else...come to think of it, the last big news story I heard was about some cat in Cali that fathered his own grandkids just before he went on a killing spree, maybe you need to look out there. I blame Berkley.
no booze doesnt sound free to me
I never mentioned freedom to buy booze as your own quote of my words demonstrates. And yes it is a freedom to not have liquor stores on every corner now that you mention it...we have this crazy little fad we call "voting" around here & when the majority of people in the county want liquor sales without special license we will have it. (unless the federal govt. decides we shouldn't have the right to choose that either - fortunately lincoln is dead so it probably won't invade us again anytime soon)
I myself hate to drive an hour & a half to buy some beer. And I also think it encourages people to drink & drive when the liquor stores are so far away, but I also vote for the liqour amendment everytime it comes up on the ballot because I'm pro-booze.:aok
-
If you go across teh border of North and South Carolina on I95 stop at a place called "South of the Broder" they will have all the flags you want. Good food too.
Another place is called "Southland" its right across the border from Va going into Moyock N.C. on Battlefield Blvd, also known as va 168, take teh buisness route though theres a toll on the 168 byapss in Chesapeake.
-
South of the Border also has a crapload of fireworks. Good times shall ensue if you buy them.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
I'm taing a trip to Orange Beach, Alabama this week, driving from Houston to there, is there any place I could find a confederate flag?
I havent been back there since hurricane Ivan, but most of the tourist trap shops had them. Have fun, I really miss Orange Beach.:cry
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Boy that's just closed minded in every sense of the word. Don't you realize that the vast majority of people who fought for the south in the civil war never owned a slave.
And the vast majority of the people who fought for Germany in WWII never killed a Jew. Yet still you don’t see swastika flags being sold as trinkets in Germany. Strange huh?
Originally posted by Brenjen
Lets not forget boys & girls; the north had slaves too. It's funny how no one ever brings up how terrible the Dutch or the Portugese or the Spaniards or the English Etc. Etc. Etc. are, they held slaves too. But only the United States (the south inparticular) gets the black eye.
The Dutch, Portuguese, Spaniards and English all abolished slavery long before America did. In fact slave trading became a dangerous business as the Royal Navy was actively hunting slave ships off the coast of Africa. America, being the last (arguably) civilized nation to allow slavery naturally gets most of the “black eye”.
Originally posted by Brenjen
And no country on earth has done so much to make up for, apologize for, & basically bend over backwards & jump through hoops for the wrongs of slavery.
Rightfully so IMHO.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
And the vast majority of the people who fought for Germany in WWII never killed a Jew. Yet still you don’t see swastika flags being sold as trinkets in Germany. Strange huh?
ah, the old Nazi flag/Confederate flag are the same thing whine.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
ah, the old Nazi flag/Confederate flag are the same thing whine.
Nope, but both arguments are equally flawed.
-
The Confederate flag and the Nazi flag are not the same. Nor are the crimes they represent. However if you can justify flying the Confederate flag by using this argument:
“Don't you realize that the vast majority of people who fought for the south in the civil war never owned a slave.”
Then you can also justify flying the Nazi flag by using this argument:
“And the vast majority of the people who fought for Germany in WWII never killed a Jew.”
IMHO both arguments are flawed in their logic. No matter how many good men fought for a wrong cause, that fact doesn’t justify flying a flag that symbolizes that wrong cause.
-
The Dutch, Portuguese, Spaniards and English all abolished slavery long before America did
So? The ammount of time that passed between it happening & when it was outlawed obviously doen't matter. People are still complaining about it like there are some states who still have pro slavery laws on the books today. By the way, America bought her slaves from Dutch traders who in turn bought them from Africans why aren't the sob sisters complaining about them?
The Confederate flag and the Nazi flag are not the same. Nor are the crimes they represent
The Confederate flag represents no crime. The only crime committed was by the federal government.
The Confederate States had every right to succeed, international review has stated when the federal govt. of the United States succeeded from the British union they set precedent that the Confederate States simply followed when they succeeded from the federal union & the federal governments own attorneys agreed with their findings.
Also if someone wants to fly the Nazi German flag...more power to 'em. It's only illegal in Germany, not in the U.S. Besides, the swastika was around long before the Nazis adopted it. As a nation the U.S.A. was buddies with two of the worst mass murderers in history - Stalin & Mao. Each of those two guys killed more of their own people than the Nazis were responsible for in total. The conservative estimates of Stalins murders were in the 60 million range & Mao's were in the 100 million range....sort of pales the Nazis 6 million Jews in comparrison, yet no one says it's wrong to fly the chinese flag or the U.S.S.R.'s flag do they.
Comparing the Confedrate flag or the Confedrate Union to Nazism is ubsurd.
-
japan still flys the old meat ball flag.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
And the vast majority of the people who fought for Germany in WWII never killed a Jew. Yet still you don’t see swastika flags being sold as trinkets in Germany. Strange huh?
And see you just had to go off the deep end there. Not one statement was made about the genocide heaped upon anyone who was Jewish of any nationality was made and you made a 80 year and 3000 mile leap in history just to come up with that. BUT no in fact if you go to Germany and have that item with you they will likely take you in for questioning if you are a foreigner and possibly toss you in the jail for a nice stay....not sure but guessing there.
As for the Confederate Flag it is a completely different item than what you mention. I take issue with it because both sides of my family lost loved ones fighting for the right to do as they wanted in the civil war. In my family it was truly a brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor war. Not a single one of those who fought and died or fought and lived were ever in a position of ownership but were in fact just as much slaves as an slave was. In fact many of them worked right along side of them in the fields until they were sent off to war. I know it wasn't right to leave the USA and the reasons were vast and different BUT had I been alive then I can assure you that I would have been right there along side my other family members fighting for what I believed in. Was the war was not fought for all the right reasons? Nope but the common man who had no ownership of any slaves were not fighting for anything other than their homelands. Which makes me say this in closing; down here the confederate flag is flown below the US flag to show respect and admiration and to always remember those of our families who died for what they thought was the right thing to do regardless of what side they were on during the civil war.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
The Confederate States had every right to succeed, international review has stated when the federal govt. of the United States succeeded from the British union they set precedent that the Confederate States simply followed when they succeeded from the federal union & the federal governments own attorneys agreed with their findings.
Secede... not Succeed.
One they tried to do and one they didn't do at all.
-
While this is all very interesting gentleman, this thread no longer serves a purpose then to "discuss" why "the battle flag of Northern Virgina" is so wrong. Some people have "soutern pride" and show it by flying the flag of their ancestors. Neo-nazis fly the swastika because they are proud of what their fellow brothern did. I don't think many people actually have pride in the extermination of innocent people compared to pride of the south.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
In fact many of the soldiers who fought in the civil war were share croppers and before the war they worked in the fields beside other men and women who just happened to have a different skin color but for all intensive purposes those people (slaves) were in a better situation than the share croppers. At least those slaves were not threatened daily with having their homes taken from them because they could not keep up with the farming.
Ok, I can't believe no one jumped all over this one yet. Just thought I'd point it out in case it was missed.
Carry on.
-
"Secede... not Succeed."
Yes, the singular "secede" & the plural "succession" throw me a bit when I'm typing fast & I don't catch it.
"Which makes me say this in closing; down here the confederate flag is flown below the US flag to show respect and admiration and to always remember those of our families who died for what they thought was the right thing to do regardless of what side they were on during the civil war."
And well the United States of Americas flag should be flown above the Confederate flag, if the Confederate flag is chosen to be flown at all, the Confederacy was beaten & this is the United States.
My family fought in the war, they were share croppers then & were after; my father lived in a military surplus tent for two years under a bridge back in the 40's when they were unable to keep up their share of the cotton farm because my grandfather had gotten sick. The slaves of the 17 & 1800's didn't have it as bad as white share croppers in some ways, medical attention & food & housing are the three things I know they had that my family did not, but my family had freedom & it has been said before & I'll say it again, you can't put a price on freedom. Slavery was wrong, it was corrected & some of us moved on, others of the U.S. poulation still feel we owe something to someone, we don't. For some reason people ignore all the facts about history, they just swallow whatever crap sounds politically correct so no one gets mad at them, BAH, get mad at me - I don't mind at all, I can read & I have a verbal history that has been told to me by family & I pass it on. I know the truth. That flag represents our history - ALL of us, because it is part of the history of this nation.
Nirvana said;
"While this is all very interesting gentleman, this thread no longer serves a purpose then to "discuss" why "the battle flag of Northern Virgina" is so wrong. Some people have "soutern pride" and show it by flying the flag of their ancestors. Neo-nazis fly the swastika because they are proud of what their fellow brothern did. I don't think many people actually have pride in the extermination of innocent people compared to pride of the south.
Sorry for my part in the "Hijacking at the point of a fact" I didn't intend for it. Also, the battle flag of Virginia was a small "standard" or flag, it was the size of the small square in the national flags, the full size one was the "NAVAL JACK". I'll stop replying now because you can't muddy the issue with facts, people won't stand for it.:lol
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
The Dutch, Portuguese, Spaniards and English all abolished slavery long before America did. In fact slave trading became a dangerous business as the Royal Navy was actively hunting slave ships off the coast of Africa. America, being the last (arguably) civilized nation to allow slavery naturally gets most of the “black eye”.
Check your facts. Slavery still exists in many parts of the world today. Just from memory, slavery didn't end in Cuba until 1886 and Brazil until 1888 (or are you saying Carribean and Latin American countries are not "civilized"?). Britain itself didn't actually outlaw slavery until I believe the 1830s, hardly "long before" the US in historical terms.
No, the reason the US gets a "black eye" is because some groups in the USA have made an industry out of being constantly offended and pot stirring in order to receive what amounts to shake-down payments and special perks. They thrive by inciting one group of people and attempting to make another group of people feel guilty for actions that are not theirs.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
"Secede... not Succeed."
Yes, the singular "secede" & the plural "succession" throw me a bit when I'm typing fast & I don't catch it.
Secession:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Secession:cool:
Sorry nirvana one last reply;
Either spelling can & has been used, allthough I concede that secede & it's derivatives are technically correct. I don't keep a dictionary or an extra window open on my computer, I spell from memory & I have been out of school a very long time.:aok
to all
-
Sorry to bring this up again, what flavour of Blue Bell would "y'all" recommend I try? I'm still a virgin to Blue Bell so don't go mad wild on me;)
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
South of the Border also has a crapload of fireworks. Good times shall ensue if you buy them.
Oh yes they do :)
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
The "war of northern aggression" wasn't really about slavery; it was about states rights. Slavery was turned into a central issue by Lincoln to encourage enlistment into the Union Army (the federals were getting their tulips kicked early on).
an excerpt from " Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" adopted by the SC legislature December 24, 1860, long before Lincoln issued the emacipation proclaimation
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave. , half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
Please note the three emboldened instances in this excerpt of the word slave... they are three of 19 instances in the entire document.
South Carolina broke away on account of slavery and the Union fought to counter that break.
The civil war was entirely about slavery.
-
Slavery was just one issue in a long list of grievances the South had against the Federal government. The war was fought over secession -- whether a state which had ratified the Constitution had a right to back out of it. The North fought to preserve the Union, and the Southern States fought to be able to leave if they wanted to.
Even a born and raised Yankee like me can see that.
-
It is apart of our nations history and if it was only used in a way of respect there wouldnt be any debate. Whether the war was about slavery or not its a part of american history but when u got the ku klux klan raning around with it it changes the nature of the flag. I honestly see no purpose for it other then the top of the general lee. Its like me haveing a flag with 13 stars. Yes we have to pay respect but alot of times its not used in this way, i have seen some up here in nyc and these arent people showing respect. When i look at our flag it represents alot of things aswell as all the men though fought from the revolutionary war up until now in operation iraqi freedom. Paying respect to only one era of soldiers and forgeting the rest is kinda disrespectful in itself. Without the ww2 guys this is thread would be in german.
-
Yes yes, that's all fine and dandy, how about the ice cream?
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Sorry to bring this up again, what flavour of Blue Bell would "y'all" recommend I try? I'm still a virgin to Blue Bell so don't go mad wild on me;)
I'd say "cookies 'n' cream" but there are so many to choose from. I grew up on Blue Bell but, alas, I don't consider it the be-all-end-all ice cream anymore. BUT, it's still very good stuff. If you are anywhere near Kemah when you go through Houston let me know.
-
With the fear of restarting this thread, I venture in. Blue bell ice cream is.......the best i've ever had. It's creaminess is on level with frozen custard, a very good thing. I didn't go crazy, just homemade vanilla, but it is goooood stuff.
Being that I don't enjoy shopping for souvenirs i didn't venture out much. I trhought I say the battle flag of the army or North carolina or whatever in "Surf Style" or whatever that place is, but I didn't go in. Long story short, I got no flags, boo hoo.:rolleyes: Some places we visited were the Pink Pony Pub and Lambert's. Went deep sea fishing on Tuesday, was a good time but fish weren't nearly as big as they first time we went 3 years ago. Other then that, just watched the babes at the beach:aok
Trip back was excellant I think there were 2 traffic jams between Alabama and Louisiana, 30-45 minutes each. And then.......it stopped. Literally, we went about 5 miles in 2 hours. After 4 hours of cussing and sitting in the truck, we broke off at 1:00AM for a pit stop and a course re direction, I-10 was going no where fast. Blah blah blah, we got back around 3AM. Stand by tickets are fun too. After watching our scheduled flight go off without us, the nice people at Southwest (my aunt is a big shot supervisor for them) got us a rerouting through Chicago Midway then to Denver. 8 hours later i'm back in Denver so I can't complain too much, everything came together fine.
P.S. Does anyone know if Coast Guard helicopters and unmarked Black Hawk's zooming over the beach at 200 feet is normal down by Orange Beach? Seemed like there were 1-2 flights almost daily
P.P.S. Does anyone know what happened at I-10 in the Houston area Friday night? I heard a semi-truck exploded on the bridge but I can't find anything in the news.
-
P.P.S. Does anyone know what happened at I-10 in the Houston area Friday night? I heard a semi-truck exploded on the bridge but I can't find anything in the news.
Welcome to Houston!!! It's a daily occurance on I-10!!!
And that's why I never, ever, drive I-10 within Houston proper or east to Beaumont (if I can help it).
-
Now Holden, that's cherrypicking the document to the extreme.
Why don't you quote the first part of the document where SC delineates the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.... you know all the parts where
FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES
are repeatedly mentioned?
And don't forget the closing:
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Welcome to Houston!!! It's a daily occurance on I-10!!!
And that's why I never, ever, drive I-10 within Houston proper or east to Beaumont (if I can help it).
We ended up going up to Liberty then taking some road (90?) to beltway 8 I believe. Then to Pearland somehow, just glad I wasn't navigating
-
Originally posted by nirvana
I'm taing a trip to Orange Beach, Alabama this week, driving from Houston to there, is there any place I could find a confederate flag? My friends are all about southern pride. Anyway, a squaddie said they sell them at mom n pop establishments and novelty shoppes. Do supermarkets sell them? Does anyone know somewhere close to there that has them? Thanks.
LOL if you cant find a confederate flag to buy in the south. Your either blind or never got out of your car LMAO
-
Originally posted by nirvana
P.S. Does anyone know if Coast Guard helicopters and unmarked Black Hawk's zooming over the beach at 200 feet is normal down by Orange Beach? Seemed like there were 1-2 flights almost daily
Yes it is. Did you notice by chance if that big 3 story blue beach house was still there? Its about a half mile or so west of Live Bait.
-
That would be the second option Drediock. I don't recall any 3 story blue buildings Slash, the damage, hurricane i'd assume, was quite extensive down there.
On another note, I told you my family were alcoholics earlier. We got in on Saturday about noon Monday they had completely run out of beer, as far as I know they had brought at least 5 24 pack cases of Milwaukee's Best Light and some Busch Light for my cousin. I'll do the math while you probably throw up from even thinking about drinking Milwaukee's Best 5X24=120 And then another 24 cans of Busch 144 cans of bear urine MMMM MMMM.
Anyway, I estimate that by the time they checked out saturday they probably spent $100 on beer just that week. Oh yeah, and the 3 bottles of vodka and the liter of Jack Daniels. Add in 15 people including 7 underage drinkers and you have a world of fun. Myself, I never drink, and my youngest cousin didn't drink so we were the only sober ones. Yep, that's my family...
-
Originally posted by nirvana
P.S. Does anyone know if Coast Guard helicopters and unmarked Black Hawk's zooming over the beach at 200 feet is normal down by Orange Beach? Seemed like there were 1-2 flights almost daily
The Orange choppers are probably part of the Coastie Training base up in Mobile where they teach those boys how to fly rescue missions. When I lived in Mobile a neighbor in my apartment complex who worked there as a simulator tech for the Coast Guard would get us into the Dauphin HH-65A and the HU-25 Falcon jet simulator a couple of times a month after hours. That was a cool thing because it was the full cockpit of the drug interdiction/rescue plane the Coast Guard used back in 1997/1998. We would jump in and setup flights from Mobile down to the gulf then over to New Orleans and back.
At Lambert's did they try to hit you with those big a@@ rolls they throw around in there? A couple of friends of mine own Live Bait down there but we haven't been there in a couple of years. We have moved our beach trips over to Navarre Beach, FL and Destin/Ft. Walton area where I used to go as a kid 2-3 times a summer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now Holden, that's cherrypicking the document to the extreme.
Okay here's the whole thing...
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
So far, no reasons fo secesson, just laying foundation...
-
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
[Committee signatures]
I guess slavery wasn't the issue. Only the bold parts were about that. The real crux was just the right to have slaves, get slaves back when they ran away, the tax levied on slaves, and the thought that those damn yankees shouldn't tell SC what they should be doing about slavery.
-
They did life guard training down at the public beach but I wasn't sure about Coast Guard training, sounds like a believable story to me though. And yes they chucked the big bellybutton rolls at us. That sorghum is good stuff mmhmm.
-
Holden, your argument is akin to saying that if the US government, without Constitutional amendment, barred all private ownership of firearms and that act caused an uprising and secession.... that it was the banning of guns that caused the insurrection and secession.
That would hardly be the case. The true cause would be the unilateral abrogation of Constitutional rights by the government.
Let's look at your quote with different bolding:
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
Seems likes it's all about abiding by the Constitution or, failing to abide by the Constitution.
IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?
NOPE.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
The Confederate flag represents no crime. The only crime committed was by the federal government
You don’t consider slavery a crime?
Originally posted by Brenjen
Also if someone wants to fly the Nazi German flag...more power to 'em. It's only illegal in Germany, not in the U.S. Besides, the swastika was around long before the Nazis adopted it. As a nation the U.S.A. was buddies with two of the worst mass murderers in history - Stalin & Mao. Each of those two guys killed more of their own people than the Nazis were responsible for in total. The conservative estimates of Stalins murders were in the 60 million range & Mao's were in the 100 million range....sort of pales the Nazis 6 million Jews in comparrison, yet no one says it's wrong to fly the chinese flag or the U.S.S.R.'s flag do they.
Ah, the good old “we’re not bad because they did even worse crimes than us” excuse, defending the crimes of the Nazis (for a change).
Originally posted by Brenjen
Comparing the Confedrate flag or the Confedrate Union to Nazism is ubsurd.
Says the CSA guy who just defended Nazism.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Check your facts. Slavery still exists in many parts of the world today. Just from memory, slavery didn't end in Cuba until 1886 and Brazil until 1888 (or are you saying Carribean and Latin American countries are not "civilized"?). Britain itself didn't actually outlaw slavery until I believe the 1830s, hardly "long before" the US in historical terms.
No, the reason the US gets a "black eye" is because some groups in the USA have made an industry out of being constantly offended and pot stirring in order to receive what amounts to shake-down payments and special perks. They thrive by inciting one group of people and attempting to make another group of people feel guilty for actions that are not theirs.
You will note that I said “last (arguably) civilized nation)”. I said “arguably” because I really don’t consider a nation civil if it condones slavery. So yes, I was and am saying that Caribbean and Latin American countries were not civilized when they condoned slavery. Nor was the USA (arguably).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Holden, your argument is akin to saying that if the US government, without Constitutional amendment, barred all ...
The document lists slavery and servitude more than a dozen times.
My argument is that slavery was the penultimate issue in the secession and thereby the Civil War.
The reason we have a constitutonal prohibition against warrentless search and seizure is not because we have a constituional prohibition, it's because unwarranted search pissed off the colonials. The issue existed and then the amendment was written.
The issue was slavery, the legal argument was unconstitutionality.
-
This coming from a yankee. :D
I'm sick of hearing about slavery in the south and the reparations (sp.) that should be paid. I'm sick of people that blame just the south or early americans for the slave trade in general.
Why aren't these same peope going back to africa, and demanding compensation from the wazooki tribe, or whoever for actually selling these people for coats, horses ect. in the first place.
Why also is it ignored that there is a very strong slave trade in africa right now. And how about the countless eastern european women that are picked up off the street, and sold into the sex trade as i write this.
Fly whatever flag you want.. and if people get offended.. F-um.
Here in ny i see people waving flags from countries that couldn't give two chits about America or what it stands for. These same people will tell you how beautiful and great there country is, while slagging ours, and they WILL look out for there own above all others. My question to them is, why the hell are you here?
Maybe we should start looking out for OUR own above all others.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The issue was slavery, the legal argument was unconstitutionality.
The issue was the Constitution and the fact that it was not being honored/observed.
I ask again:
IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?
Clearly, the answer is "NO!".
Real simple.... 13 colonies agreed on a Constitution that reserved some rights to the individual States. Some States failed to honor the agreement, deliberately violating the aforementioned rights. As a result, other States decided to withdraw from the "compact".
The issue was the Constitution.
If the Federal Government took over all aspects of the media in the US would the issue be the Constitution or would the issue be speaking against the government?
The issue would be the Constitution.
Agree or I'll be forced to invade.
-
Stang, I saw it, but something that wrong shouldnt even need a reply.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I ask again:
IF the Northern States had followed the Constitution as written, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?
Clearly, the answer is "NO!"
Much the same answer exists to the question, "If the Southern States had abolished slavery, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?"
The slavery issue was very important and much discussed in the writing of the constitution. Compromises were reached to achieve political unity among the colonies. Among other questions considered, even though slaves were not considered people, the south wanted slaves counted as 3/5 of a person so that their representation in the House would be more powerful.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, all wrote in condemnation of slavery even though many were slaveholders.
Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."
Slavery was a huge issue about which the compromise of the constitutional convention saved the union in 1787. Slavery was once again the issue in 1860.
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
-- Patrick Henry, Virginian, 1773
-
Originally posted by Toad
The issue was the Constitution and the fact that it was not being honored/observed.
I ask again:
The issue would be the Constitution.
Agree or I'll be forced to invade.
ROFL!!
Damn.. sometimes I REALLY enjoy the discussion between the sharper minds. ;)
Definition: Diplomacy. Failures of debate that usually lead to war.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Much the same answer exists to the question, "If the Southern States had abolished slavery, would SC have had to issue this proclamation?"
Obviously not.
However, the CHOICE to abolish slavery would have been made by the Southern States themselves, using their own authority. There would have been no Constitutional question about it, there would have been no external force or threat of force involved.
In fact, the case has often been made that the economic model supporting slavery was failing fast. It wouldn't have been many more years before slavery was not profitable in the South and all that unpleasantness could have been avoided. We'd probably still have much more in the way of State's Rights too.
On the other hand, the NORTHERN STATES were undeniably violating the Constitution and openly so.
SC called it like it was and exercised their STATE'S RIGHT to withdraw from the "compact" that made them part of the United States.
The first military actions of the war were by the South; they took back the Federal forts in their States. That was all they did until.....
....Winfield Scott ordered General Irvin McDowell to advance on Confederate troops stationed at Manassas Junction, Virginia.
The Union troops invaded Virginia.
Tell me Holden, did McDowell invade Virginia to "free the slaves"? Nope.
The Union invaded Virginia to force that State back into the Union, a clearly Constitutional issue.
The Confederates resisted because they believed
the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact.
We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other;
As free, independent and sovereign states the failure of the Northern States to follow the Constitution released the Southern States from the compact.
Constitutional issue. States Rights issue.
All.
The.
Way.
-
Okay, tell me what other "State Right" permeated the political wind in 1860?
The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, Kansas - Nebraska Act, Dred Scott...In 1846, Penn. congressman David Wilmot proposed that no territory be added to the Union as a slave territory. Southerners blocked his provision before it went to the senate.
All major issues leading up to war. What did they have in common with the secession document of SC?
Was is unconstitutionality or was it slavery? Which put food into the mouths of the south?
If you insult my wife, am I going to be angry due to your insult or that your may have violated ettiquette?
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Why aren't these same peope going back to africa, and demanding compensation from the wazooki tribe, or whoever for actually selling these people for coats, horses ect. in the first place.
Why also is it ignored that there is a very strong slave trade in africa right now. And how about the countless eastern european women that are picked up off the street, and sold into the sex trade as i write this.
Because its easier to ignore those things and look down at people based on where they live. Makes them feel superior to something in their otherwise worthless existence.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was is unconstitutionality or was it slavery?
It was unconstutionality without question. Slavery wasn't the only State's Rights issue that threatened the Union, either. In 1832 this very same South Carolina passed the Nullification Ordinance that declared the Federal tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. Clearly a State's Rights issue and one that saw Federal warships off Charleston. Jackson stated that SC stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason". Had the Civil War started then and there, it would have been irrefutably a State's Rights issue.
So, similarly in 1860, it was the failure to abide by the Constitution by the Northern States that drove South Carolina to issue the above posted document.
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.
Again, assume the current Feds unilaterally declared all firearms held in the hands of private citizens were to be turned in or confiscated. The western Red states tell the Feds to stuff it. Open conflict results, with the aforesaid red state citizens declaring they will not be stripped of 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
Is the cause gun confiscation or the failure of the Feds ot execute their Constitutional obligations?
Clearly, it's Constitutional.
-
Why didn't SC enumerate nullification in it's declaration? the words 'Tariff' and 'nullification' do not appear in the document, yet over a dozen times references to slavery occur.
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.
Slavery was considered essential to the southern economy. If the unconstitutional behavior had to do with halting the growing of tobacco or cotton, the south would have rebelled on account of the outlawing of cotton or tobacco.
The base issue was slavery as your quote above admits. The legal justification was unconstitutionality, but if it were something not so intimately entwined in the southern culture and economy, it would have not been such a big issue.
I have fervent belief that your average illiterate* southern citizen spent a lot of his time discussing constitution behavior, but probably did discuss cotton prices and how he was going to get the crops in without slaves.
*I would doubt that the literacy rate in the USA at the time was over 50%
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why didn't SC enumerate nullification in it's declaration? the words 'Tariff' and 'nullification' do not appear in the document, yet over a dozen times references to slavery occur.
Because THAT Constitutional issue arose in 1832, 28 years before secession. It was a close run thing, as I mentioned, with Jackson positioning a small fleet off Charleston and threatening to use force to enforce the tariff.
From Wiki but you can find the same info just about anywhere:
The crisis ended when Henry Clay and Calhoun worked to devise a compromise tariff. Both sides later claimed victory.
Calhoun and his supporters in South Carolinia claimed a victory for nullification, insisting that it, a single state, had forced the revision of the tariff.
Jackson's followers, however, saw the episode as a demonstration that no single state could assert its rights by independent action.
Calhoun, in turn, devoted his efforts to building up a sense of Southern solidarity so that when another standoff should come, the whole section might be prepared to act as a bloc in resisting the federal government.
Clearly, this Constitutional episode 28 years earlier prepared the ground for what was to follow. The South managed the tariff issue in Congress in the intervening years; they didn't abolish tariffs but they kept them at levels that allowed their economy to function. Note again that the Panic of 1857 generated Northern calls for higher tariffs that went essentially unanswered.
I have fervent belief that your average illiterate* southern citizen spent a lot of his time discussing constitution behavior, but probably did discuss cotton prices and how he was going to get the crops in without slaves.
[/b]
Less than a third of Confederate soldiers were slaveholders or from slaveholding families.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the Southern states were invaded by the North, not the other way around. After the secession of the state of Virginia, Benjamin W. Jones wrote that 'the determination to resist invasion-the first and most sacred duty of a free people-became general, if not universal".
A.P. Hill, chose to fight for the defense of his state, Virginia, even thought he was deeply opposed to slavery.
It's extremely simplistic to say that the other 70+ percent of the Confederate troops fought for slavery when the diaries and letters of so many indicate they owed duty to their State before duty to the Union.
You just have the cart before the horse. The Civil War was a Constitutional conflict that eventually came to a head over the slavery issue.
It had been building for quite some time as evidenced by the trade and tariff issues in 1828 and 1832. Then there was the Panic of 1857, which again brought the tariff issue to the forefront. The South was heavily dependent on imports while the North viewed imports as competition for their industry.
You never answered this question:
Assume the current Feds unilaterally declared all firearms held in the hands of private citizens were to be turned in or confiscated. The western Red states tell the Feds to stuff it. Open conflict results, with the aforesaid red state citizens declaring they will not be stripped of 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
Is the cause gun confiscation or the failure of the Feds to execute their Constitutional obligations?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You also seem to ignore the fact that the Southern states were invaded by the North, not the other way around.
It was the south that fired the first shot in anger. A federal installation was besiged and attacked. Is it your contention that there should have benn no federal response?
Originally posted by Toad
You never answered this question:
Assume the current Feds unilaterally declared all firearms held in the hands of private citizens were to be turned in or confiscated. The western Red states tell the Feds to stuff it. Open conflict results, with the aforesaid red state citizens declaring they will not be stripped of 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
Is the cause gun confiscation or the failure of the Feds to execute their Constitutional obligations?
"From my cold dead hand" sounds like the loss of guns that would piss off Charelton Heston.
If someone enters your home and steals your TV, is it the fact that your TV is gone and some son of a B---- took it that makes you mad, or is it that he violated provision 325.24 of the state penal code?
I think a better parallel would be if the eastern states decided that the western states could not use petroleum. Even though it would be unconstitutional based on interstate commerce, the issue would be the useless car in the driveway, the lack of electric heat, light, and A/C, and the shutting down of industry.
-
You dance divinely.
The South, viewing themselves as sovereign, independent states took back their own land from what had become a Foreign Power...the Federal government.
I'm sure they expected a Federal response but were probably hoping their right to withdraw from the Union might be honored instead.
Can you refer me to any of the Founder's documents that say that by ratifying the Constitution a State was checking into the Hotel California? They could check out anytime they liked but they could never leave?
I don't think you can. The Southerners knew this; heck, a lot of the original Constitution/government of the US was designed BY Southerners. I'm sure they knew their history.
The South did not invade the North until Lee moved north in September of 1862. The first years of the Civil War were fought on Southern ground, by Southerners resisting an invader. It was this pending and actual invasion of their Sovereign State that led the majority of the Confederate soliders to the army. Lee's memoirs provide an excellent example.
The issue, in both cases (2nd Amendment/Slavery), is that the offending parties are proscribed from doing what they did by Constitutional law.
If the government honored the Constitution in either case, there'd be no fight at all. That is the issue.
There's a link between the Emancipation proclamation and the NYC draft riots too. Kinda odd for folks that set out to "free the slaves" to only riot over enlistment shortly after the proclamation, don't you think?
If there were no provision 325.24 of the state penal code you might be mad about losing your TV but you'd have no real recourse. It'd be a common fact of everyday life.
The fact that there IS such a code and that we all agree to abide by it is what makes "civilized society" possible. However, once the "compact" is broken there has to be accountability.
A better view of your example would be some druggie steals your TV set and the Government refuses to prosecute him. You'd be angry at the druggie but you'd want to replace your government even worse.
Voila. The Civil War. The Northern states were complicit in "stealing slaves" by not returning them according to the Constitutional provisions to do so. I'm sure the Southerners were angry at the involved states but they were more set on getting out of a broken compact.
Constitutional.
All.
The.
Way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Constitutional.
All.
The.
Way.
ok let's look at your constituional argument a little more closely... SC sited in its grievance,
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, but not all of the southern founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery.
The fourth article was written as a compromise to allow the unification of the colonies. The 3/5 provision was written that way as well.
The constitutional provisions you site were written into the constitution in support of.... Slavery.
If there were no slavery there would have been no reason for the south to rebel. No slavery, no constitutional protection of same, no rebellion, no "invasion", no civil war.
Hence which ever way you slice it, slavery was the driving issue. That's why SC said so in it's document.
-
Nope.
Just like your example of the stolen TV set. If the government knew who stole it and where it was and knowingly failed to fulfill it's obligations to protect your property,you'd be most angry at the government, not the thief.
Read what you just posted. In order for the US to even exist, there had to be an acceptance of Southern slavery, a compromise in the very basic fabric of the Constitution itself.
The North then fails to honor it's obligations under the Constitution, ie: return the slaves that have been designated and agreed to as Southern property since the very beginning of the Union.
It is this violation of the compact, this failure to honor the agreement that leads to secession.
Note again that the tariff issue of 1832 nearly led to conflict between SC and the Federal government. No slavery issue there at all.. pure Constitutional disagreement. The resolution led to Calhoun
building up a sense of Southern solidarity so that when another standoff should come, the whole section might be prepared to act as a bloc in resisting the federal government.
That's exactly what happened too. The next Constitutional disagreement happened to be over slavery and the South DID "act as a bloc in resisting the Federal government".
As I said, you have the cart before the horse. Had the North followed it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War.
Had Lincoln allowed the South to withdraw from the broken compact of the Constitution there would have been no Civil War. (I see you have also been unable to find any of the Founder's documents that say that by ratifying the Constitution a State was checking into the Hotel California. They could check out anytime they liked but they could never leave.)
The South didn't invade the North. They withdrew from the Union, reclaiming their independence as sovereign, free states. They also reclaimed land used by the Federal government (the forts) as would be their right.
It was Lincoln and the North that invaded the South.
And there was absolutely no mention by Lincoln of freeing the slaves for TWO YEARS. When he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation.....stating that that on January 1, 1863, he would free all the slaves in those states still in rebellion, what happened?
The draft riots happened. Why? Because, the guys who would have to die to Emancipate didn't want to fight for that. They would fight for the Union but not Emanciaption.
(And speaking of Constitutionality...Lincoln, in September 1862, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law on those who interfered with recruitment or gave aid and comfort to the rebels.
And people bash Bush for his wartime acts. He hasn't even come close to THAT!)
Again the simple undeniable truth is that had the North honored it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War. Had the South been allowed to withdraw from the Union, there would have been no Civil War.
Both of those are clearly, solely Constitutional issues.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And there was absolutely no mention by Lincoln of freeing the slaves for TWO YEARS. When he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation.....stating that that on January 1, 1863, he would free all the slaves in those states still in rebellion, what happened?
The draft riots happened. Why? Because, the guys who would have to die to Emancipate didn't want to fight for that. They would fight for the Union but not Emanciaption.
Maybe the north didn't want to fight for that, but the south sure did.
Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Mississippi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
And the last quote that most proves my point,
originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.
So if you think that the cause of the civil war was unconstitutional behavior of the Union, and as you wrote, the cause of that unconstitutional behavior was slavery, then the peculiar institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Maybe the north didn't want to fight for that, but the south sure did.
Au contraire, mon ami! The NORTH wanted to fight... they invaded Virginia to "restore the Union".
The SOUTH wanted to leave the UNION; they didn't invade anyone. I think the case can be made that had they been allowed to leave the Union, there'd have been no fighting at all.
Allow me to rebold:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic
Mississippi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
So if you think that the cause of the civil war was unconstitutional behavior of the Union, and as you wrote, the cause of that unconstitutional behavior was slavery, then the peculiar institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
First, you forget there were other issues. The tariff issue which was grounded in the differences between a manufacturing-based society and an agrarian society also came into play. Recall the Panic of 1857.
Second, you have the cart before the horse with slavery. Again read this: the simple undeniable truth is that had the North honored it's Constitutional obligations there would have been no Civil War. Had the South been allowed to withdraw from the Union, there would have been no Civil War.
Copnversely, if the Constitution did not include all the compromises made to ensure initial ratification in the South....there would never have been a Union.
Clearly, it's Constitutional from the very beginning.
-
I have learned much here!
1. Due process and the constitution can be ignored by the Feds when they see fit... up and including initiating an illegal war on states attempting to exercise their constitutional rights.
2. The Feds can be expected to do it again. And again.
3. To win against the Feds will require dissolution of Federal Power.
Ok... now how do we accomplish THAT?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok... now how do we accomplish THAT?
I have been pondering upon this.
No one wants to see another "Civil War". More than a few are convinced there is no way to truly reform the present ownership of Congress by the lobbyists or to curb the increasingly intrusive nature of the Federales.
Of course, some DESIRE one part of the Federal intrusiveness while decrying the other parts (Yeah Nanny State, Boo Star Wars Empire). Then theres the others that cheer the part the others decry and boo the parts the others cheer. So, we're divided anyway (Dare I mention red/blue?)
Lincoln set the precedent; even though there is nothing I can find in the founding documents that prohibits a State from withdrawing from the Union, I don't think the Feds will let that happen and will cite Lincoln as the justification.
So..no Civil War and the Federales won't let a State leave while there are clearly divisions amongst the States as to which way we should steer the ponderous ship of the Federal Government.
Leaves me with.... Tax Rebellion. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
First, you forget there were other issues. The tariff issue which was grounded in the differences between a manufacturing-based society and an agrarian society also came into play. Recall the Panic of 1857.
That must be why Mississippi put in their document "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--" "agrarian society" in 1860 ... That must be why "tarrif" does not appear in the SC document but slavery does.
All that tarriff stuff really got them so pissed off they were without words when it came time to proclaim it to the world.
And the cart before the horse? The constutution dates to the 1780's. Slavery in America dates a few centuries prior to that. Slavery was an issue at the consitutional convention, hence the political compromises.
Again I post my favorite quote:
Originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.
Do you now disagree with yourself?
-
Everyone knows the war of northern aggression was about states rights except the O'club. Lincoln didn't free any people, he saw slaves as property of rebellious territory & would have been willing to keep slavery as he said himself prior to the war.
Folks always hit on slavery as a hot button topic to get emotions running high, just like what happened in the 1860's
Here are some interesting facts that don't involve the issue of states rights or it's underlying issue of slavery.
Statistics for the Federal Union Vs. the Confederacy:
- 2,200,000 men under arms Vs. the Confederacys 1,064,000. That's a one million one hundred & thrity six thousand soldier difference
- K.I.A., 110,000 Vs. the Confederacys 93,000
- Total dead (disease/wounds/accidents etc.):
360,000 Vs. the Confedracys 258,000
- Surviving wounded, 275,200 Vs. the Confederacys 137,000
All the numbers were rounded to the nearest hundred
The Confederacy had no navy to speak of (they began acquiring one)
no cannon factories or iron works few sources for any war fighting materials or household goods that were not produced in the South itself (& few were)
The south devised the first submarine that succeeded in sinking an enemy ship.
The South sunk the first ship to ever be attacked with an electronically detonated mine & the ironclad can be seen in Vicksburg natl. military park, it was raised & put on display. Worth a look if you're ever in the area.
On 9 May, 1864 a confederate sniper took what was to be considered an incredible shot at that time. During the Battle of Spotsylvania, Sgt. Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry, took aim and fired at a distant Union officer. Grace was using a British Whitworth target rifle and the distance was 800 yards. Grace's target, Major General John Sedgwick, fell dead after uttering the words "Why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Many states had areas that were sympathetic to the other side & "mini-wars" were fought in these areas. Arkansas has a town along the Missouri border that is seperated by a small river (glorified creek) the inhabitants of one side of the town were pro Confedracy & the other side were pro union. They fought on & off throughout the entire war & still file motions to this day to seceed from each other & form seperate towns.
The Confederate flag has more stars than it did states! The Confederate congress added stars to honour Kentucky & Missouri because the two states feilded armies for the Confederacy but the two never secceeded from the Union making the troops from both states "armies in exile".
It was common for Confederate & union troops to meet & trade with each other under informal cease fires in the dead of night. They would exchange corespondence & trade tobacco (hard to get in the north) for coffee (hard to get in the south) & generally just lament the situation.
That war saw shermans march to the sea, the first United States military attack that was designed from the begining to be against non-combatants; a brutal attack on civillian populations that was never justified in the eyes of many Southerners. It also saw the invention or institution of many new weapons & types of combat like trench warfare,revolving gun turrents,rifle scopes,mine fields,camoflage,hand grenades,The Medal of Honor & many, many other things too wild to print here (like anti-aircraft fire & aircraft carriers) without the proper sources for defense against flamers.
So let's talk about the interesting aspects of a blemish on Americas history instead of dwelling on one facet of one arguement before the thread gets locked. There are many fascinating things about that war that could be discussed for months without getting boring.
Not edited for spelling - sorry
-
Originally posted by Toad
I have been pondering upon this.
Leaves me with.... Tax Rebellion. :)
How? For the lower half of the 'middle class', every year nets a refund. The Government gets paid before we do via withholding tax.
That would mean we'd have to inspire a 'tax revolt' amongst the upper middle class and the very well-to-do.... and the very well-to-do are the governments favorites.. big time tax cuts for them.
That leaves the upper middle class... and I kinda doubt we can inspire anything that would put their homes and kids security in a position for seizure..
would they?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Again I post my favorite quote:
originally posted by Toad
The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional obligations was slavery.
Do you now disagree with yourself?
No one has said slavery wasnt' involved. Clearly, however, it was an issue that precipitated a Constitutional Crisis: Can a free, independent, sovereign state join a compact (Constitution) that results in a Union and then at some later date choose to remove itself from that compact and leave the Union if the other parties to the compact fail to uphold the terms of the compact[/b].
The South believed it had the right to secede from a compact not honored by the other signatories.
There is nothing in the original founding documents that says they could not nor is there a specific process cited on how to do return to the status of a free and independent sovereign state.
Lincoln disagreed and made his opinion stick by force of arms.
It was a Constitutional crisis.
Slavery was an issue, just as tariffs were an issue. Remember Jackson threatened South Carolina earlier and put Federal warships in Charleston harbor over a Constitutional issue.
Clearly, this Constitutional crisis had been brewing for a long time. You might say it was embedded into the fabric of the Union from the beginning. The Northwest Ordinance is a prime example but that Ordinance is woven into the very fabric of the Constitution making it a Constitutional issue. Without the Ordinance and other concessions to the South there would have been NO UNION for Lincoln to preserve.
You focus to narrowly and fail to take in the entire scope of the North/South problems. They stem from the design of the Constitution.
Changes in the Constitution at the beginning would have avoided the Civil War. A clear procedure for withdrawing from the Union for example. A refusal by the North to compromise on slaves counting as votes and fugitive slave laws would have meant no Union, no Civil War.
No matter how you slice it, the Civil War has it's roots, it's cause, in the very nature of the Constitution. It's a Constitutional issue.
-
That war saw shermans march to the sea, the first United States military attack that was designed from the begining to be against non-combatants; a brutal attack on civillian populations that was never justified in the eyes of many Southerners.
Never Justified in the eyes of ANY southerners. It was a most dispicable act that served no purpose but to destroy the lives of everyone in his path. Senseless distruction.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It was a Constitutional crisis.
Of course it was, and the reason was slavery. Take a look at Crittenden Compromise which didn't flew well with North...
A joint resolution (S. No. 50) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the northern and southern states, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to all the people that peace and good-will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore,
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following articles be, and are hereby, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:
Article 1: In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situate north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. And when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.
Article 2: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.
Article 3: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.
Article 4: Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory, in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable river, or by the sea.
Article 5: That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases where the marshall or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave. And the said county, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers or rescuers by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himslef might have sued and recovered.
Article 6: No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment will be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is, or may be, allowed or permitted.
And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power; and whereas it is the desire of Congress, so far as its power will extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions; Therefore,
1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States.; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt by rescue of the slave, or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws.
2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts of Congress, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences, which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes.
3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave, to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance or danger of resistance or rescue.
4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves in the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed; and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made.
...That was the "compromise" offered by the South :eek:
-
Originally posted by Toad
No one has said slavery wasnt' involved.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"
You are right about that...
Clearly, however, it was an issue that precipitated a Constitutional Crisis:
So is it your opinion that it is the second domino in line that starts the fall?
(http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/10910/wc%239_The_domino_effect.jpg)
-
Nope, quite simply, my position is that the Constitution is the first domino.
Answer this:
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?
The heart of the conflict lies in the Constitution. There can be no other answer.
-
Thanks for taking a topic to 3 pages guys, first time ever!:aok
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope, quite simply, my position is that the Constitution is the first domino.
Answer this:
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?
The heart of the conflict lies in the Constitution. There can be no other answer.
The conflict was present before the constitution was written. The compromise the constitutional framers came up with was a major flaw in the document, but the document was flawed because the society itself was flawed. The flaw in the society, reflected in the constitution, was well documented by the founding fathers... slavery.
Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawal. It would have been a decision voted on by the house and senate at least, probably 2/3 majorities of both houses and 2/3 of the state legislatures.
Lincoln stated before he took office he would not force abolition upon the south, and indeed he did not have the constitutional power to do so. Even though he believed that the country could not survive indefinitely half slave and half free, he also said in his inaugural address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
So even though Lincoln had no inclination and no power to outlaw slavery, because of the south percieved his rise to power a threat to the institution of slavery the south began it's withdrawl from the union (When Lincoln was a private citizen as he had yet to take office) and chose armed insurrection, only 5 weeks after Lincoln took the oath. There was no choice but to respond in kind.
Note that the crisis of the constitution is because of, once again, slavery.
Also note that a president is sworn "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" While he broke habeus corpus and the emancipation proclimation itself was probably extra constitutional, saving the Constitution and saving the Union is one and the same. The oath isn't taking of the paper, it's talking about the stucture of government. A structure that included Virginia and Alabama.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawal. It would have been a decision voted on by the house and senate at least, probably 2/3 majorities of both houses and 2/3 of the state legislatures.
[/b]
Oh, so you found the Constitutional process for withdrawing from the Union? Where was it? Can you link it? :)
I see you failed to answer the question again:
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War?
-
Originally posted by Toad
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War? [/B]
Definately not. But there would be war between Union and Confederation later on.
Confederate economy was based on slavery and the South was dead set to keep it that way. In few decades, due to industrialization and abolitionist movements in Union and Europe, world would stop buying confederate cotton and Confederates only chance would be to expand towards west, trying to capture new land and resources. That probably wouldn't go well with Union, which would have its own plans with new territories and the armed conflict would be inevitable.
If by some miracle war wouldn't happen, Confederation would face the fate similar to Apartheid in SA, rather sooner than later.
Either way, South is better off being part of the Union.
-
I can still pick up a DKM (Duetch Kreigs Marine) flag from some dude selling flags out of his van in a parking lot. The swastika with tha black stripes and the iron cross in the corner.
I just think it looks cool.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, so you found the Constitutional process for withdrawing from the Union? Where was it? Can you link it? :)[/B]
Please quote the passage in my post(s) where you gleaned that...
I see you failed to answer the question again:
If Lincoln had allowed the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union...and there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says they could not.... would there have been a Civil War? [/B]
Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawl, although he was sworn to defend the union, via defending domestic tranquility.... but not before he took the office, and all but maybe one confederate state withdrew before he was sworn in.
So your IF statement is generally moot, but yes there would have been civil war, but it would have taken a different form. John Brown at Harpers Ferry, slave rebellions of Prosser, Turner, Vesey, and some 300+ other documented slave rebellions showed the violence which was inevitable.
There is no constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl.
Once again, no place in the constitution is there a passage giving the president the power to allow withdrawl.
One last time, Lincoln did not have constitutional authority as the people of the USA did not give an authority to the president to allow for the dissolution of the union.
The constitution is a document of birth. Most birth certificates do not have a agreement outlining burial arrangements.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Definately not. But there would be war between Union and Confederation later on.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Please quote the passage in my post(s) where you gleaned that...
[/b]
Unkink your hair; it's a tongue in cheek statement. I KNOW you didn't find one because it's not there.
Lincoln was not empowered to allow withdrawl, although he was sworn to defend the union, via defending domestic tranquility.... but not before he took the office, and all but maybe one confederate state withdrew before he was sworn in.
[/b]
HMMM.. lot's here. He was not empowered to declare war on the South while Congress was not in session. Congress declares war, not the President. Lincoln essentially declared war by ordering the blockade of Southern ports.
The South could have withdrawn. You'll recall
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The United States was never delegated the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Thus, withdrawing from the Union was a power reserved to the States respectively.
Nor were they restrained to any particular Presidential election timeframe when deciding to withdraw. It makes no difference whether or not he was sworn in; the State has the power to make it's own decisions on withdrawal and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.
I also disagree that there eventually would have been a Civil War.
Had the sovereign states been allowed to withdraw and form their own Confederation free of Northern aggression:
John Brown would have been prosecuted...as he was... by the US Federal Government since it occurred before Southern secession.
The slave rebellions after secession would have been dealt with by the military forces of the individual states or the forces of the Confederacy. Are you saying that after peaceful secession, as was their Constitutional right, the Northern Federal government would have invaded to aid a slave rebellion? I think not.
Would there have been violence? Probably.
In any event, slavery as an economic model was already failing the South in 1860. Left alone, it would have died a natural death. It would have taken longer but it would not have cost 5 years of bloodshed and ~630,000 lives. Most importantly, the Federal Government would never have achieved the conquest of States Rights that has turned it into the nosy, overbearing, dictatorial, bloated behemoth that it is today.
There is no constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl.
[/b]
Again, for emphais, the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There's constitutional authority to for the president to allow withdrawl because the President never was given that authority, thus it is reserved to the States.
The constitution is a document of birth. Most birth certificates do not have a agreement outlining burial arrangements.
Completely wrong. The Constitution is a document of marriage. There's always a procedure for divorce.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The South could have withdrawn. You'll recall (quote of amendment 10)
But article 1, clause 15, section 8 about the power of Congress says,
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
So congress has the power to call forth the militia to supress insurrection, and insurrection is what the confederacy was doing. In 1861, several resolutions of the 37th congress (before Lincoln was even president) gave the president the power raise an army and use it to supress insurrection.
Originally posted by Toad, about my birth certificate point
Completely wrong. The Constitution is a document of marriage. There's always a procedure for divorce.
Okay, lets look at a marraige licence: the parallel is still valid. A prenup is a seperate document.
There is no power given to the president to allow for dissolution of the union, and the constitution he was sworn to uphold was the marraige licence. Without a prenup, he was sworn to keep the marraige solvent.
Your position that slavery was not the pre-eminent issue and that it was the unconstitutional behavior of Lincoln and the North is contradicted by your own words that, as you so eloquently said,
Clearly, however, it was an issue that precipitated a Constitutional Crisis:
and earlier, The issue upon which the Northern states failed to execute their Constitutional was slavery.
So evidence shows that you believe, even though you deny it, that the first domino (the one that "precipitated the constitutional crisis") was slavery.
The Civil War was about slavery, Mississippi and SC agree, and so do you: Slavery "precipitated the constitutional crisis" which precipitated the Civil War.
-
Nah, twist it all you like.
I still disagree.
The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North.
That is in no way insurrection. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provisoin making a State bound forever to the Union just because they ratified the Constitution.
Power to "allow" dissolution? Come on; you know that's a huge reach. The 10th says it very simply. If a power is not enumerated, the Federal Government (and the President of said Federal Government) DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.
So either way you cut it... if Lincolnd was not given the power to "allow" dissolution, if it was not enumerated, than THAT power is reserved to the States individually. Thus the power to "allow" dissolution belonged to the States.
Here's your first domino:
Had the North not opposed the Southern States withdrawing from the Union, there would have been, could have been NO CIVIL WAR. Period. End of story. Withdrawing from the Union is unequivocably a Constitutional issue, one in which the North was definitely on the wrong side.
-
Know what's amazing?
I'm what's amazing... Me and my power of perception.
As soon as I saw the title of this thread(and the number of posts it's generated), I said to myself: "Self, this is surely another pissing contest about who's better, who's worse, who's a racist, who's righteous, who's educated and who's ignorant... Oh yeah, and about what the real cause of the war is."--No really, I actually said this.
Then I looked at the first post. A bit surprised to see it was a simple question about where to get the Confederate Flag. Scrolling down, I was relieved to find that my initial prediction, after what amounted to nothing more than a brief distraction involving battlefield symbology, had proven accurate.
Yes, I am indeed amazing.
Oh yeah, and I'm gonna agree with Toad on why the war was fought.
-
Newspapers start wars. Those wars they didnt start they are against.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Newspapers start wars. Those wars they didnt start they are against.
So the Jerusalem Times was responsible for the Crusades? Or was it the Constantinople Monitor?
-
how long before an armed international confilct results from a BBS flame war?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, twist it all you like.
I still disagree.
The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North.
in·sur·rec·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin insurrection-, insurrectio, from insurgere
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Open fighting against authority (as one's own government) -- see REBELLION
Of course it was insurrection.
But feel free to disagree with the US Congress, the legislatures of the southern states, Webster's dictionary, and anyone else.
As the original 13 were not attempting to topple the crown, that wasn't insurrection either, right?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
in·sur·rec·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin insurrection-, insurrectio, from insurgere
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Open fighting against authority (as one's own government) -- see REBELLION
As the original 13 were not attempting to topple the crown, that wasn't insurrection either, right?
Hunh. Then it wasn't really the American Revolution. It was the 1st Successful American Insurrection. Or, the American Rebellion, if your English.
I'll be damned.
-
Yep, when the colonists rebelled against the English Crown, that was insurrection.
When a free and sovereign State decides to withdraw from a failed compact with other States AND the compact itself has no provision prohibiting such an action it is NOT insurrection.
As I said, the roots of our present overbearing Federalism lie in Lincoln's disregard for State's Rights.
Once more, with feeling:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Show me the power delegated to the United States by the Constitution that directed Lincoln to invade the South to "save the Union".
In which Article or Amendement does it reside?
-
it would seem to me to be a very big point about nothing..
..the 'nothing' being that there has been NO ammendment SINCE the Civil War that precludes succession or abridges the rights of states to secede.
a VERY big point; that glaring nothing....
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Hunh. Then it wasn't really the American Revolution. It was the 1st Successful American Insurrection. Or, the American Rebellion, if your English.
I'll be damned.
Revolution: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed.
According to some in this thread, since the crown was not overthrown, that would be correct.
But since in both the revolutionary war and the civil war, a smaller piece of a larger whole was trying to become independant, from the point of view of the larger whole, the smaller piece was in open rebellion against the larger, which is by definition insurrection.
Hence the term 'rebels' was used to describe both the minitemen and confederate fighters.
I quoted the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.
A free and sovereign state could tax foreign trade, keep troops and ships, enter into treaties, alliances, or confederations; coin money; all things prohibited by the Federal Constitution, of which, once again, the slave holding states were signatories.
Still, the issue that was the base of all this was slavery, as described in documents (South Carolina was in full earlier in the thread) from Georgia:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
and Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--
Now the declaration of Texas does have some other reasons, although Slavery is the first one mentioned and is mentioned frequently throughout the document. Texas does include greivances of lack of protection against Indian attacks and "Banditti" from Mexico. But it asserts that the reason for this lack of protection was because it was a slave holding state, and it seems that a strong reason for it's secession was it did not wish to be left alone in the south as a union outpost and felt it was more akin to the Confederacy.
-
You still trying to twist it?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But since in both the revolutionary war and the civil war, a smaller piece of a larger whole was trying to become independant, from the point of view of the larger whole, the smaller piece was in open rebellion against the larger, which is by definition insurrection.
Hence the term 'rebels' was used to describe both the minitemen and confederate fighters.
[/b]
Unfortunately for your comparison, the colonies did not enter VOLUNTARILY into an agreement with the Crown that clearly delineated each sides rights and responsibilities.
That makes all the difference.
This is NOT true in the case of the South. The Constitution clearly points out that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.
Constitutionally, Lincoln and the North didn't have the "power" to invade the South.
the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.
You might even say they entered a compact with the other states. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out:
1. The South did not invade or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. They attempted to withdraw from the Union and that is something quite different. So your "insurrection" argument is lost; it's clearly shown the North invaded the South, not the other way round.
2. The Northern States had failed to abide by the compact. Clearly, undeniably failed to fulfill their obligations.
3. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that ever said a State cannot withdraw from the compact.
It's already been shown that Lincoln had no respect for the Constitution. His invasion of the South is perhaps the preeminent example. He's the President that made the Federal Government the bloated Borg machine it is today.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You still trying to twist it?
the part of the Constitution that empowers the congress to put down insurrection, a part of the constitution signed by representatives of slave holding states. By becoming signatories states became united with, not independant from other states.
You might even say they entered a compact with the other states. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out:
1. The South did not invade or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. They attempted to withdraw from the Union and that is something quite different. So your "insurrection" argument is lost; it's clearly shown the North invaded the South, not the other way round.
Rebel forces attacked the federal supply ship "Star of the West" in January.
Rebel forces siezed all but 2 army forts in the south, (Sumter and Pickens)
while Buchanan was still president.
Rebel forces fired on Ft. Sumter in April
Rebel forces attacked the Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry in April
Armed insurrection had begun long before Union forces "invaded" the south in July, and even before Lincoln was president.
2. The Northern States had failed to abide by the compact. Clearly, undeniably failed to fulfill their obligations.[/B]
Note that the Consitution of the CSA does not have any passage allowing for secession from it, it merely parrots the US consitution but ads the passage from the Articles of Confederation that talks of "Sovereign and free states" and strengthens the institution of Slavery
The Confederates designed a counrty that strengthened slavery but the did not have a passage that allowed for secession should the greiveance be big enough. Why?
Feb 8 thru 27, a peace conference between seceeding states and the Union was held. The proposed article has 7 sections.
Section 1 marks 36° 30' north latitude as the boundary where slavery is allowed south and prohibited north.
Section 2 has to do with the expansion of US territory, and a double majority requirement, that is that the senators from slave states must pass by majority and the senators from free states must pass by majority.
Section 3 has to do with prohibiting the abolishment of slavery
Section 4 has to do with returning fugitive slaves
Section 5 prohibits the importation of foreign slaves
Section 6 require that all states must accept changes in the parts of the US Constitution that speaks of slavery issues, effectively giving any one state a veto power.
Section 7 requires that thee federal government buy fugitive slaves from owners whne the fugitives cannot be returned.
More proof that Slavery was the issue.
just straight forward, no twisting involved.
-
The Confederates designed a counrty that strengthened slavery but the did not have a passage that allowed for secession should the greiveance be big enough. Why?
The question is, why should they? Joining either union was voluntary & so leaving it should be too without having to spell it out.
You mention rebel forces attacking federal positions & troops. Those were in Confederate territory & the federals were instructed to leave. No territory in the C.S.A belonged to the federal govt. after they left the Union. It was the Union who invaded. If the federals wanted peace, they should have left the positions they occupied in foreign territory when instructed to do so.
Everyone keeps harping on slavery, it was only one facet of a larger issue, get over it. Lincoln would have kept slavery if the southern states had agreed to stay in the union, so apparently it wasn't THE issue for them. It was states rights all the way; 100%.
-
The reasons for the civil are not so important as the reasons the south lost. Understanding the loss of that war will go a long ways toward a different outcome next time around. ;)
Seriously though, another civil war isn't likely to be a state vs state war. More likely to be worker vs corporation/government war as we've seen happen so many times throughout human history.
-
This is about the silliest argument I've seen on this board... I take that back, I've seen much sillier... but anyway.
Slavery was THE isssue. There is no denying that. The best Toad has to offer is the compromises set up in the Constitution due to SLAVERY. His claim that the compromises set up the eventual crisis and were thus the "first domino" are laughable. The reason for the compromise was SLAVERY.
The "states rights" issue was SLAVERY. The South didn't secede due to tarifs. As Holden pointed out so deftly SLAVERY was there before the constitution, it precipitated the silly 3/5ths compromise and it was the reason for the huge separation between North and South.
Arguing that there would not have been a war if Lincoln hadn't refused the right of seccesion is like saying there wouldn't have been a shooting at the bank if only the cops weren't called to arrest the robbers.
-
Some people just refuse to see the forest for the trees.
-
Yep Holden's right. The southern states used to teach a revisionist history version of the civil war in public schools. My sisters went to school for a few years in charleston SC in the 70s, they've got lots of funny stories about it.
Even then it was very racially segregated. I remember us kids sitting on the porch eating watermelon with our hands like normal people eat fruit. And the neighbor lady came over in a big, igdignant huff telling my dad that he can't let us eat watermelon like that because that's how "******s" eat it.
It was so common to throw that word around that people might get offended if you took offense to it. I remember the icecream truck driver telling me that I better not forget to take my bigwheel back in the garage or a "******" will steal it. I remember getting slapped by my mom when I was 4 or 5 for saying that word, untill then I didn't know that there was anthing wrong with it. I learned that word before I even went to kindergarten, pretty sad statement.
-
I was born in L.A. & it's the same there. The word ****** is no different than spic or wop or kike or rag as a matter of fact, I have been called a cracker, honky, snowflake, whiteboy, saltine & many others...you don't see me crying foul over it. I never learned anything about "a revisionist history version of the civil war" & I attended public school in Arkansas for years.
( I bet the profanity filter even edits out ****** & not the others )
Any of you fine upstanding people ever heard of racism? It's the same for everyone, blacks included. They are not above it or deserving of special treatment, but they get it anyway & that is wrong.
Edit: SEE that word is not profanity if Honky isn't. I am offended & I think I'll sue :lol
-
1. Lincoln and the Federal government DID NOT have an "enumerated power" in the Constitution to use force to keep any State in the Union.
2. There would have been no Civil War had the North not invaded the South.
3. Constitutional issue and one in which the South held the correct interpretation.
But they lost and now you have this omnipotent bloated bureaucracy ruling the States. Enjoy.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I was born in L.A. & it's the same there. The word ****** is no different than spic or wop or kike or rag as a matter of fact, I have been called a cracker, honky, snowflake, whiteboy, saltine & many others...you don't see me crying foul over it. I never learned anything about "a revisionist history version of the civil war" & I attended public school in Arkansas for years.
( I bet the profanity filter even edits out ****** & not the others )
Any of you fine upstanding people ever heard of racism? It's the same for everyone, blacks included. They are not above it or deserving of special treatment, but they get it anyway & that is wrong.
Edit: SEE that word is not profanity if Honky isn't. I am offended & I think I'll sue :lol
This person missed my point entirely. You see where he came from the word ****** was offensive, or an insult. In Charleston 1975 our neighbors saw nothing wrong with it. It was just part of their lexicon. They would be taken aback if a local black person was offended by it, and if a white person was offended by it they'd probably get upset and feel insulted.
One of my sisters went to a black school, so she had black friends. Sometimes neighbors would call to warn us that we had "******s" in our yard.
I wonder how much charleston has changed since then, I wonder if there are still white and black schools there.
I remember when I went to Army basic training in 91 there were black trainees there from charleston, I tried to talk to them because I was born there, but they didn't much care for me or anybody with my skin color. I'm glad I didn't grow up in Charleston because if I had I would've probably bore the same attitute towards them as they did towards myself.
-
I missed no point, you missed mine. I saw none of what you describe & have lived in the south over 30 years. It was you who stated some facts not in evidence. I merely pointed out the that your one unique experience was not in fact typical.
I happen to know racism is more of a problem in the north from my wife who lived in northern Ohio her entire life & the 90% of my relatives who live in Indianapolis & have for decades.
Excuse me if I see & understand the insinuations made by posters. I will not hesitate to say aloud what others hint at. People insinuate so they can later say "I didn't say that" when tey get an opposing opinion.
Holden is wrong.
You are wrong for implying racism is a rampant southern tradition & taught in schools.
If people want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy fought the Federal govt. over states rights then be my guest. It is said the victor writes the history & yet the facts are still out there & people still choose to believe the war was over slavery & racism. Clearly it is you who believe this that are slaves; slaves to your own conscience over something you had nothing to do with.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
snip
The "states rights" issue was SLAVERY. The South didn't secede due to tarifs. As Holden pointed out so deftly SLAVERY was there before the constitution, it precipitated the silly 3/5ths compromise and it was the reason for the huge separation between North and South.
Actually, there was a strong push for secession in the South in the 1830's that was prompted specifically by Federal tariffs. It got far enough that President Andy Jackson prepared to make war to put the movement down. The tariffs tended to benefit the industrial North and strangle the agrarian South, due to the different nature of their income sources. Economics were the motivator of the tension.
Slavery was another facet of this disparity of economic interest between North and South. Its true that slavery became the final straw, and thus the issue most cite as the "cause", but its inaccurate to say that its what the South fought for.
In fact, the issue of state's rights had been festering since George Washington left office and economic interests were the root cause of the conflicts between North and South. The South finally felt backed into enough of a corner that it decided to secede because of its perception that the North was becoming predominate in political power enough to deny the South what it perceived as its right to self-governance. It wasn't morals that made them ready to fight if need be - it was economics.
culero
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Holden is wrong.
You are wrong for implying racism is a rampant southern tradition & taught in schools.
If people want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy fought the Federal govt. over states rights then be my guest.
Why was "states rights" not enumerated in the peace conference document? Slavery was.
Why was slavery documented in the reasons for seccesion in SC, Miss, Georgia, and Texas?
I am just looking at the historical documents which don't single out stuff like tariff policy, but they do document slavery.
Mississippi said in its reason for seccesion document, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--" Look at the document and find a statement so blatently clear on tariff policy... There is one on "invasion", but this was passed in Jan 1861. Well before Lincoln was president, and well before federal troops invaded the south to quell the armed insurrection already in progress.
Interesting that not one free state left the union... I guess they had no greivance.
here you go (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)
And the coup de gras... MT agrees with me. When Midnight Target and Holden agree there is only one conclusion. It must be the truth.
-
Succintly well put Culero.
-
I would agree with Culero. It was about economics. It's nearly always about economics.
It was about the possible loss of the second largest valued property (only behind land) in the south.
It was about whether stolen property was returned to it's rightful owner.
It was about allowing southerners to move to western lands and take their property with them.
It was about the agriarian economy of the south and how cotton, tobacco, and the other crops were harvested.
-
I can't state any more plainly than what I already have numerous times, but here goes.
Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone as an impetus for the South to stay in the federal union and they secceeded anyway, so how could it be the deciding factor? If it was they would have accepted & stayed in the union.
Slavery was another facet of this disparity of economic interest between North and South. Its true that slavery became the final straw, and thus the issue most cite as the "cause", but its inaccurate to say that its what the South fought for.
And there is another fairly good way of expressing it.
Even the Confederate commander Gen. Lee was quoted as saying he wished the south had freed the slaves first & then declared war. He understood the power the negroes plight would have on peoples emotions & thereby would increase the size of the union forces.
For some reason people even today will ignore facts because of these same emotions. I do not understand why. The institution of slavery was bad, it's wrong to keep another human being as property & I wish no one had ever brought one captive negro here. Then we would all be equal & there would be no reverse racism & affirmative action. The South would still have formed the Confederacy & would still have been beaten, but at least we wouldn't have to listen to all the BS about slavery for an endless eternity.
-
Originally posted by culero
The South finally felt backed into enough of a corner that it decided to secede because of its perception that the North was becoming predominate in political power enough to deny the South what it perceived as its right to self-governance.
culero
And again the Constitution enumerates no power to the Federal Government to prevent a State from leaving the Union.
As we've seen Lincoln had no qualms about violating any and all parts of the Constitution as he saw fit.
Thus the South was not allowed to depart the Union, an act to which they were Constitutionally entitled. (10th Amendment, powers reserved to the States).
No Constitutional violation by Lincoln, no Civil War.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I can't state any more plainly than what I already have numerous times, but here goes.
Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone as an impetus for the South to stay in the federal union and they secceeded anyway, so how could it be the deciding factor? If it was they would have accepted & stayed in the union.
Apparently you haven't read Mississippi's reasons for secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--[/b]
The Mississippi legislature wrote it down and published it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I would agree with Culero. It was about economics. It's nearly always about economics.
It was about the possible loss of the second largest valued property (only behind land) in the south.
It was about whether stolen property was returned to it's rightful owner.
It was about allowing southerners to move to western lands and take their property with them.
It was about the agriarian economy of the south and how cotton, tobacco, and the other crops were harvested.
All true, but IMO it should also be said:
It was about the industrial economy and larger population of the North, and the South's (IMO accurate) perception that the North wished to achieve political superiority.
There is no denying that slavery was the catalyst that precipitated the conflict. However, its not true that slavery was the only impetus. The South seceded in an attempt to take control of its own political and economic destiny.
culero
-
I guess it's all in how the individual views it. I really didn't think it was possible, seeing as how it's pretty cut & dried. But Culero sees it a little differently than I do; we see it very close to the same, but not exactly. Toad & I vary by about the same degree. Holden, you putting up one State as an example & we are talking about the entire nation of the Confederacy, (actually a superbly highjacked thread entirely by accident of course).
I have said it before, what is in your face obvious to me, isn't to someone else & vice/versa. We will never agree, but I respect your opinions.
I will have my second natl. flag, it's the flag under which my counties volunteers whipped the Union regulars to a stand still & routed their advance, saving Little Rock for another year. A mere few hundred men against thousands.
If I choose to fly it, I will show propper respect & fly the flag of the United States of America first. You just have to understand, we have a fighting spirit here that runs deep, a lot of the suburban areas of the U.S. are what the southerners used to be. We wave at people we don't even know driving down the back country roads, we're hospitable to strangers & will stop to help a child or a woman in distress, sometimes even a man if he looks out of place. We will also go toe to toe with 10 to 1 odds if we feel the need.
Some people call us rednecks, mostly because of the outdoor labor a lot of us do, but the southern style can be found in Wyoming & Montana & Oregon; all sorts of quiet places where people are friendly & will speak to wrong numbers on the phone like a friend. I just keep in the back of my mind what my South African partner told me once, "There are bananas everywhere Brent" I knew that, I just needed reminded of it. There are racial tensions in the south, of course. But it seemed more prevalent in the urban north. There was segregation in the south (the north too in places) for decades, & Reggie White brought out some very interesting points in a book he wrote concerning how the negros were better off under segregation. It's an interesting read. Yes, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Holden, you putting up one State as an example & we are talking about the entire nation of the Confederacy, ...edit... Yes, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Well you read my snip from Mississippi...
Here's a snip from Georgia... (the very first lines)
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Here's one from SC...
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
(so the unconstitutional behavior at which they were angry was related to...)
Here's Texas...
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--
So of the four states that wrote down their reasons, slavery was preeminent in all four. The unconstitutional behavior at which they were angry was related to slavery as enumerated in the four documents. they say things like,
"The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States"
So the grievance about concentration of political power was threatening to, "use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States". What institution did the slave holding states have that the non slave holding states did not have?
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Piggly Wiggly?
oh no... not Piggly Wiggly.... ha ha ha.. that has to be the poorest store in the nation.. ha ha ha
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And the coup de gras... MT agrees with me. When Midnight Target and Holden agree there is only one conclusion. It must be the truth.
Or time for a snowball fight in hell.
:cool:
-
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
And here's the part Holden left out of Georgia's Secession document, It just happens to be the very next sentence:
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
"Constitutional obligations".
In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
In the matter of Texas, this quote was overlooked.
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.
Gee...they all mention that their Constitutional rights have been "violated and virutally abrogated" by the Federal Government. Of course, they were absolutely and unarguably correct.
That they were mad as hell and they weren'nt not going to take it anymore.
And there's not a thing in the Constitution that says they can't withdraw from the Union. There's no enumerated power given to the Federal Executive to use force to stop a State from withdrawing from the Union.
So th South was right on both Constitutional issues.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And here's the part Holden left out of Georgia's Secession document, It just happens to be the very next sentence:
-----
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
-----
"Constitutional obligations".
"Constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property"... Just what was "that property"? ... Slaves
Good point Toad.
Originally posted by Toad
In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:
----
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
----
Did you mean to mention a passage that had the line, "The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government"? This is in reference to westward expansion and the legislative balance between slave and free states being upset. Why would they care unless they were trying to protect something that the slaveholding states had that the non-slave holding states did not have?
Once again you butress my argument that the right to hold slaves was the preeminent reason for secession.
In the matter of Texas, this quote was overlooked.
---
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.
---
[/B]
And what were "these reasons"?
As I said before, Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Now the declaration of Texas does have some other reasons, although Slavery is the first one mentioned and is mentioned frequently throughout the document. Texas does include greivances of lack of protection against Indian attacks and "Banditti" from Mexico. But it asserts that the reason for this lack of protection was because it was a slave holding state, and it seems that a strong reason for it's secession was it did not wish to be left alone in the south as a union outpost and felt it was more akin to the Confederacy.
Originally posted by Toad
In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:
----
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
----
"The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government,"--- why not just the "states" why just the slaveholding states? Weren't all the states under the same constitution? I wonder (once again) what was it that seperated slave holding states from non-slave hoilding states? Maybe slavery?
Originally posted by Toad
Gee...they all mention that their Constitutional rights have been "violated and virutally abrogated" by the Federal Government. Of course, they were absolutely and unarguably correct.
That they were mad as hell and they weren't not going to take it anymore.
And there's not a thing in the Constitution that says they can't withdraw from the Union. There's no enumerated power given to the Federal Executive to use force to stop a State from withdrawing from the Union.
So the South was right on both Constitutional issues.
The constitutional issues were driven by slavery.
As SC said, A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
No state north of that line seceeded. The issue was slavery.
-
LOL, twist it any way you like.
In the end, even slavery was a Constitutional issue from the very beginning of the Union.
Can't dodge that one; CONSTITUTIONAL. All. The. Way.
-
Toad=Black Knight?
(http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/IMPTYV/IMPTYVMP009_180.jpeg)
-
No matter how you look at it.... Toad is correct.
It was about states rights. The states had the right to succeed from the union. The federal government had no right to stop them. There was no procedure for succession because our constitution and declaration of independence pretty much gave any state the right.
The U.S. recognized that when a body could no longer tollerate the rule of a govenment then that body had the right to leave and form their own government.
It was the whole premise of the declaration of independance. The constitution was a document that spelled out rights of individuals. It also said that states had rights. It said that the states had all rights not specificaly given to the federal government... That would mean that the south had the right to leave the union if they desired.
As for slavery? It was on the way out in any case. The civil war may have cut it's last gasps a little shorter but not by much.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...The constitution was a document that spelled out rights of individuals....
Actually this is a misinterpretation. The constitution spelled out the limitations of government. The first amendment does not give individuals the right to frre speech. It limits government from abridging those rights.
...That would mean that the south had the right to leave the union if they desired.....
But leaving the Union requires an organized opposition to established authority and that is the definition of insurrection. The Congress has the constitutional authority to supress insurrection. (art 1 section 8)
In Texas vs. White, The Supreme Court said, "But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But leaving the Union requires an organized opposition to established authority and that is the definition of insurrection. The Congress has the constitutional authority to supress insurrection. (art 1 section 8)
In Texas vs. White, The Supreme Court said,
Now Holden...that is just TOO FUNNY!
Texas vs White?
This Texas vs White?
TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.
December Term, 1868
So you're saying that.... 3 years AFTER the North invaded the South and won... that the US Supreme Court said it was all legal?
No kidding! I am SO suprised.
Too bad Lincoln didn't have this as precedent when he violated the Constitution.
This is law "after the fact" my friend.... a decision post facto by several years; what answer would you expect from a government that just successfully violated the Constitution?
You would expect an "ooops" verdict? :lol
-
Yeah 1868.
The supreme court acts slowly. That was the first time the court dealt with seccesion as far as I can find. sue me. Far be it from me to question the authority of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues, or the state legislature of slave holding states as to why the seceeded.
However, the state legislatures, by voting for secession, conspired against the established federal government.
This was an "act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"
It can also be characterised as "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another."
These are dictionary definitions of insurrection.
The fact that congress has the constitutional power to put down insurrection should say something about a state right to seceed. Perhaps if that secession was disorganized, but that would fall under the federal responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility wouldn't it?
-
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.
Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.
Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.
Winner.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.
Without Sumter, Lincoln could not have mustered enough support for a war. Once the South attacked Sumter, the Constitutional argument is moot, IMHO.
Hardly. The Confederacy had withdrawn from the union & was therefore an independent nation & the union was an occupying foreign power by that time. The union was told to vacate & they refused.
The constitutional arguement was what caused the formation of a seperate nation in the first place.
-
Why have you all turned my innocent post into a 4 page "i'm right, you're wrong, **** off" argument?
-
The AHBBS exists for two reasons.
1. To argue.
2. To make Nirvana unhappy.
This thread is perfect. ;)
-
Yes, it's all about me, 50% of the time.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The South made one major mistake and that was Sumter.
Nah, their mistake was Grits.
What the hell are (is?) Grits, anyway?
-
GRITS R TEH NUMMEH!1!!!1!1!!!
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Why have you all turned my innocent post into a 4 page "i'm right, you're wrong, **** off" argument?
So your vacation is over....
Did you get your flag?????????
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Nah, their mistake was Grits.
What the hell are (is?) Grits, anyway?
(http://www.truegritconcrete.com/images/rooster.jpg)
True Grit.
-
Grits are cornmeal that has been reconstituted I think. Malt-o-meal is what i enjoy.
-
holden yep..you are right I was being simplistic... the constitution really just limits governments rights.
No where in it does it say that a state does not have the right to suceed.. the supreme court backed this up... even today it is possible for a state to suceed from the union. There are quite a few papers on the possibility out there.
The south was in the right attacking federal forces that refused to vacate... they were right but... they didn't have the might.
If they had simply waited till the feds attacked them they might have had a different outcome.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The supreme court acts slowly. That was the first time the court dealt with seccesion as far as I can find.
[/b]
It didn't act on secession at all during the war. It dealt with it post facto 3 years after the war was over. You think the SC was going to tell the Union vets and bereaved families of the deceased that Lincoln didn't have the right to invade the South over secession?
sue me. Far be it from me to question the authority of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues, or the state legislature of slave holding states as to why the seceeded.
Let's talk about Constitutional issues.
First one: 4th Amendment and the Constitution. It had been clearly hammerd out prior to the ratification of the Constitution that the slaves in the South were "property" and that the North was Constitutionally bound to return runaways.
So, if the North failed to return them...that would be a Constitutional issue.
Second one: Secession. The 10th Amendment says any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government resides in the States or the people. Prior to the Civil War there were no SC rulings on Secession; your post facto 1968 ruling has no bearing on the issue at the time of Secession. The South felt (with good Constitutional reason) that they had the right to withdraw from the Union. Lincoln, with not a shred of Constitutional support declared war on the South to "save the Union".
Once again, the 10th Amendment makes secession a Constitutional issue.
Pretty clear the Civil War was fought over Constitutional issues.
This was an "act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"
It can also be characterised as "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another."
These are dictionary definitions of insurrection.
Dandy little definitions to be sure; to bad they don't apply. After the South withdrew from the Union, the Federal Government had no existence in those States. Hard to act against a civil authority that has...no authority.
Again, the 10th clearly reserves to the States the power to remain in or withdraw from the Union. That power most certainly is not enumerated to the Federal Government.
-
Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Dandy little definitions to be sure; to bad they don't apply. After the South withdrew from the Union, the Federal Government had no existence in those States.
I could have sworn Ft Sumter was in South Carolina.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.
I have a aunt that specialises in "cheese grits". It's baked grits with tons of real cheese and buttah. She typically makes it with Thanksgiving Dinner but whenever I am coming to see her she makes it especially for me.
If there's heaven in a dish, that is it.
-
Are grits anything like malt o meal? It sounds good anyway, who could resist cheese and buttah?
-
Ft Sumter, SC, CSA.
What was Carolina gonna do... let them heathen yankees imprision and torture us with grits in another Quantanamo Bay?
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Are grits anything like malt o meal? It sounds good anyway, who could resist cheese and buttah?
Malt o Meal is wheat (thus "cream of wheat" or as the Navy says, "farina"). Grits are hominy corn.
Ain't you seen "My Cousin Vinny"?????
-
Of course it is.
Read what I said again.
Sumter was attacked AFTER the SC secession. That land and the fort on it belonged to SC because...... after secession the Federal Government had no existence in those States.
Two days after leaving the Union, on December 22, 1860, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to negotiate for the delivery of federal property, such as forts, within the state.
[LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PRESIDENT.]
WASHINGTON, 28th DECEMBER, 1860.
Sir: We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the People of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light houses and other real estate, with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina was recently a member; and generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
In the execution of this trust, it is our duty to furnish you, as we now do, with an official copy of the Ordinance of Secession, by which the State of South Carolina has resumed the powers she delegated to the Government of the United States and has declared her perfect sovereignty and independence.
It would also have been our duty to have informed you that we were ready to negotiate with you upon all such questions as are necessarily raised by the adoption of this ordinance, and that we were prepared to enter upon this negotiation with the earnest desire to avoid all unnecessary and hostile collision, and so to inaugurate our new relations as to secure mutual respect, general advantage and a future of good will and harmony beneficial to all the parties concerned.
It wasn't the South that started the Civil War. It was Lincoln, the man that usurped powers not enumerated to the Presidency by the Constitution.
Further, this was sent during the negotiations:
To His Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN,
President of the United States:
In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States Forts, in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention, and we hope and believe, not until an offer has been made, through an accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the Federal Government, provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present.
JNO. McQUEEN,
WM. PORCHER MILES,
M. L. BONHAM,
W. W. BOYCE,
LAWRENCE M. KEITT.
Despite having this assurance from SC, Lincoln almost immediately moved to reinforce the forts. His diplomatic failure here lead directly to the firing of shots at Sumter.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Two days after leaving the Union, on December 22, 1860, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to negotiate for the delivery of federal property, such as forts, within the state.
But you just said, (wait for it)
Originally posted by Toad
Sumter was attacked AFTER the SC secession. That land and the fort on it belonged to SC because...... after secession the Federal Government had no existence in those States.
So why did SC send comissioners to Washington to negotiate for the delivery of federal property when there was no federal property?
Make up you mind.
-
No, I thought it was corn though, sounds good, however. Somehow I don't think instant grits would do them justice....
-
Grits Rock. I like mine with butter and sugar as a side to pork chops/ chicken friend steak, scrambled eggs w/ cheese, scattered hashbrowns and buttered toast.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
No, I thought it was corn though, sounds good, however. Somehow I don't think instant grits would do them justice....
Does water soak into a grit faster on your stove than anybody elses stove? Are the laws of physics different on your stove that on any body else's stove? Are you sure it only took five minutes?
-
No, i'm a mile higher then some of yous so water boils at a lower temperature, thus it only took 4 minutes.
-
Holden's quoting "My Cousin Vinny". If you haven't seen it, you should.
-
"It's a matter of well known fact that it takes 20 minutes to cook a grit."
---Vincent Laguardia Gambini.
-
Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: ...Ah, the two what? Uh... uh, what was that word?
Vinny Gambini: Uh... what word?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two what?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: What is a yute?
[beat]
Vinny Gambini: Oh, excuse me, your honor...
[exaggerated]
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So why did SC send comissioners to Washington to negotiate for the delivery of federal property when there was no federal property?
Make up you mind.
To get the troops of a foreign power out of SC's forts, obviously.
And it's very clear that SC wanted to avoid a shooting war if possible.
generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
If Lincoln had removed the troops instead of reinforcing the forts....no Civil War.
-
Truth is that before the civil war it was universaly believed that the states did indeed have a right to secession.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo42.html
The civil war changed everything and imposed a strong central government on a loose allience of free states. This was for the worst in my opinion. States rights were forever marginalized and the concept of the constitution was pretty much nullified.
Most of the good of the revolution against england was undone by the loss civil war by the southern states.
There is no way that the civil war was not about states rights. The feds were not fired on because of slavery.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The civil war changed everything and imposed a strong central government on a loose allience of free states.
That's what the Constitution did when it replaced the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles talk of sovereign and free states. Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
That's not in the Constitution. The states sovereignty and freedoms are restricted by Section 10.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
looks like they might have commited insurrection... why? Slavery.
-
Bravo, Holden.
Been a pleasure reading this thread.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Bravo, Holden.
Been a pleasure reading this thread.
Which did you like better? The "I am trying to find a Confederate flag?" part or the discussion on grits?
-
Damn... this thread was almost dead.
-
Aside from the interruptions after I said we were going to discuss grits, I liked it all, even though I didn't read pages 2 and 3.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
Secession: formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.
-
Hey Reschke, look up a book called "The Tories of Winston County". The only place I know you can find it is at Wallace Community College in Cullman. One of the main figures in the book is Henry Tucker, greatx4 uncle or so of mine. It's a pretty decent read and an interesting piece of history that most people don't know. My great grandmother told me the family version of the brutal murder at the end of the book that took place 6-7 years after the war. It's about a group of people that didn't want other people telling them what they should be doing. Self determination, states rights, etc etc.... You'll enjoy it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Does water soak into a grit faster on your stove than anybody elses stove? Are the laws of physics different on your stove that on any body else's stove? Are you sure it only took five minutes?
Shaddup Vinny :p
OK, I didn't keep reading before I posted. Everyone but that gay guy from northern Kali beat me to it.
-
3 cups o' grits
6 cups o' water
3 cloves o' garlic
1/2 lb of cheddar
1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil
cook the first three 'till the grits are done.
stir in the cheese til melted.
poor grits into 2" deep cake pan.
refridgerate 'till firm.
form 4" rounds, about 2" thick.
heat oil till it's 'busy'
fry rounds until brown, flip and brown the other side.
ONLY FLIP ONCE!
drain, cool, enjoy with anything or by themselves.
works with small shrimp, ham, bacon or white meat in the mix too.
-
Mmmmm
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Shut up, the tpic is grits. Share your favorite grit recipes or why grits are unconsitituoional on the basis of the ## amendment.
You just let em try and make grits unconstitutional. That`s when you will see the south rise again........................ ......suh.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Secession: formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.
And in order to formally withdraw, (on account of slavery) one must conspire to do so. This planning must happen before withdrawl (on acconut of slavery) takes place. This would be an organized opposition to an established authority (on account of slavery). This would be insurrection, (on account of slavery) which of course the federal congress has the authority to extinguish.
-
Read the links Holden... before the civil war it was common and majority opinion that states had the right to secede.
The articles of confederation are not talking about sucession... they are talking about insurection.
Obviously.. you believe the two to be the same but they are not... Insurection is defying the government you belong to while staying a part of it.... in other words... staying in the union and making your own coinage and laws that are unconstitutional.
The southern states did not wish to rebel or start a revolution... they merely wished to disolve the union and the contract they had voluntarily entered into... a move that was considered to be quite in their rights to do.
There was nothing even new or earth shaking about the south doing this.... West Virginia had seceded from virginia... there was a movement that went on for years where the Eastern states were talking of secedeing... they did not but only narrowly was the move voted down... at no time during those times did anyone ever say in any public forum that it was not constitutional for them to do so.
Nope... the South was within their rights to dissolve their union with the government. States rights and the spirit of the constitution was destroyed by a powerful central government and a brutal show of force.
Oh... Lincoln would never have attacked the South over slavery. He attacked them in order to continue to rule them by force. so... in that respect... slavery had nothing to do with it. If the south had agreed to stay in the union if they could keep slaves... Lincoln would have oblidged. He would have ignored slavery... everyone in the world including the south knew that slavery was on the way out... on it's last legs.
Waves of cheap labor were on the horizon much better than any expensive and pampered slave could ever be... You could rent cheaper than own and.... If the rental died, or got crippled or old.... no big deal... you weren't out anything. fire him and get another.
Lincoln nor any northern politician gave a crap about the rights of slaves... certainly not enough to go to war over.
lazs
-
The only meaningful difference between those who rebelled against their rulers in the war of independence and the war of northern aggression ;) was that those who were looking for change were successful in the first and not in the second.
-
Holden is splitting hairs lukster...It is the kind of hair splitting that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and pretty much allowed the tyranny we have today.
What it boiled down to is simply that the intent of the constituion and declaration of independace was usurped by a strong central government...
In other words... as you say... It was right against england but wrong when it was against them.."We had the right to leave tyranical england because it is a humans right to be governed only by his own consent but..... now that we are in power we feel that might makes right and a strong central government usurps the right of the people to choose their government." The exact opposite of what America was all about.
It is hair splitting in the extreme to call the dissolution of a union voluntarily entered into..... "insurection". The South never broke any of the articles of confederation (making it's own coinage etc.) until after it had lawfully seceded from the union.
Slavery is just a pathetic attempt to put a good face on the whole act of central government tyranny..
If slavery were the issue they could have allowed the South to secede and then declared war on them with slavery as an issue (a plan that was considered).
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The articles of confederation are not talking about sucession... they are talking about insurection.
The insurrection clause I site is in the Constitution, as that was the document in question in 1860.
The Constitution replaced the weaker government of the Articles of Confederation with a stronger Constitutional government in 1787.
As Mississippi said, in addition to "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--", the also say,
The hostility to this institution (slavery) commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
So even the south realised that the cause of "unconstitutional behavior" was hostility to slavery, and due to this hostility to slavery, they committed insurrection by an organized opposition to an established authority, the Union of which they were still a part.
The organized opposition came in the form of voting for seccesion from a Union they percieved as opposing slavery.
The root cause analysis was one side opposed slavery and the other side wanted to keep it.
-
the fact that one or two states used slavery as an issue does not mean that the civil war was about slavery. The civil war came about because the constitution did not define the right to sucede and every person and every public forum before the civil war believed in the states rights to sucede.
Now you are telling me that the war was about slavery and not sucession? that is very short sighted. If you do some reading you will see that the eastern states attempted to sucede earlier... the process took several years and was eventually voted down.
At no time did anyone from either side say that there was a constitutional issue with sucession other than that it was a states right to sucede from the volutary union.
What was different was that the southern states suceded and then evicted the federal troops... the civil war was about the south attacking the north.... not about slavery.
You will admit that lincoln would have been happy to allow slavery if the south said... "ok..we'll stay in the union but we want to keep our slaves." ?
Hell yes... lincoln and the federal government didn't care a whit about slavery.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The insurrection clause I site is in the Constitution, as that was the document in question in 1860.
So... the States proceeding with secession, an idea at the time currently believed to be the right OF the State, were still bound by the Constitution not to form a confederation? If this is the case, why do we still use the term secession?
-
HEY! WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GRITS:furious
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You will admit that lincoln would have been happy to allow slavery if the south said... "ok..we'll stay in the union but we want to keep our slaves." ?
Hell yes... Lincoln and the federal government didn't care a whit about slavery.
I will admit that, however SC (and 6 other states) decided to seceed while Buchanan was still president. It was the self proclaimed 'slave states' expectation of the Lincoln adminstration's attitude toward slavery to which they objected. They did not give Lincoln the chance.
SC cared deeply about slavery, and said so in their declaration. The other three states (making four, not two, that wrote down their reasons) also noted slavery as their primary motivation.
Not one free state seceeded.
-
well... there you go.... only three or four slave states gave slavery as their reason for sucession. The fact is...
They didn't even need a reason. At that point in our history... we were free people who were governed by choice and not force. The civil war changed all that. We still have it better than most countries but the civil war removed a lot of what the constitution and declaration of independence was all about.
The civil war came about because the federal government was growing and needed funds. It could not rationalize nor iompose the kinds of taxes and oppressive rule that it wanted when the precident was for states to disolve the union..
At some point there had to be a showdown between freedom and big, centralized government.
As has been pointed out... We won the first test against the oppessive brits but lost the second. Bad thing about freedom is...
You can't win most of the fights.... you have to win all of em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You can't win most of the fights.... you have to win all of em.
lazs
Or at least the last one. In our case, it may be the next one.